This study is the first to apply psychological theories about cognitive bias and information seeking to jury selection in actual trials. It draws on archival data to analyze how the discourse of jury selection skews evaluations of jurors' fitness for service and contributes to racial disparities observed in earlier research.
This study analyzes conversations among attorneys, judges, and potential jurors in 12 capital murder cases from North Carolina. It does so using a method for conversation analysis developed to analyze racial disparities in patient-doctor interactions. This method provides a way to characterize in detail interactions occurring in a conversation.
Previous analysis of jury selection in capital murder trials in North Carolina documented stark racial disparities. In litigation based on this research, however, prosecutors responded that race never enters their minds when picking a jury. Yet attorneys' preference for jurors of a certain race may operate in ways far more subtle than conscious bias. Psychological evidence suggests that people harbor stereotypes about which demographic groups are more or less likely to convict and ultimately issue a death sentence, and these operate as starting hypotheses that inform how attorneys collect information during voir dire.
This study will contribute to the jury selection literature by clarifying the voir dire process, and provide insight on the source of the avowedly unintentional racial disparities that persist in jury selection. It will also provide useful guidance to participants in the criminal justice system at all levels--policymakers, legislators, judges, prosecutors, and defense counsel--as they seek to eliminate the influence of race in this system. Finally, this project will expose law students to these issues and make them more prepared to use research accurately in court and to implement meaningful reforms.
