Jury Size and the Hung-Jury Paradox
34 Pages Posted: 6 Jan 2012 Last revised: 24 Sep 2012
Date Written: January 3, 2012
Abstract
In the United States, the 1970 Supreme Court decision Williams v. Florida 399 U.S. 78 (1970) reduced from twelve to six the minimum number of jurors required under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. In the hope of improving the legal process with faster deliberation and fewer mistrials, eleven states have used juries of less than twelve in felony cases. This has given origin to an unprecedented natural experiment on jury decision-making. Contrary to the predictions of probability theory, the reduction in jury size has not brought the expected reduction in the number of mistrials. In this paper we provide a possible explanation for this fact. We formulate some propositions considering the case of jury deliberation in the presence of informational cascades. These results have implications not only for juries, but also for democratic theory.
Keywords: Condorcet’s jury theorem, jury size, mistrial, cascade behavior
JEL Classification: K14, K41, D7, D03
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?
Recommended Papers
-
The Design of Financial Systems: Towards a Synthesis of Function and Structure
By Zvi Bodie and Robert C. Merton
-
The Design of Financial Systems: Towards a Synthesis of Function and Structure
By Zvi Bodie and Robert C. Merton
-
Group Judgments: Deliberation, Statistical Means, and Information Markets
-
Group Judgments: Deliberation, Statistical Means, and Information Markets
-
The Knot of Contracts: The Corporate Geography of Legacy Costs
By Ashby Monk
-
Recasting the Sovereign Wealth Fund Debate: Trust, Legitimacy, and Governance
By Ashby Monk
-
The Pension Governance Deficit: Still with Us
By Ronald Capelle, Hubert Lum, ...
-
Making Pension Boards Work: The Critical Role of Leadership
By Gordon L. Clark and Roger Urwin
-
Innovative Models of Pension Fund Governance in the Context of the Global Financial Crisis
By Gordon L. Clark and Roger Urwin