Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

A Model of the Jury Decision Process

1979; University of Chicago Press; Volume: 8; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1086/467604

1537-5366

Alvin K. Klevorick, Michael Rothschild,

Legal and Constitutional Studies

Previous articleNext article No AccessA Model of the Jury Decision ProcessAlvin K. Klevorick and Michael RothschildAlvin K. Klevorick Search for more articles by this author and Michael Rothschild Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmailPrint SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Journal of Legal Studies Volume 8, Number 1Jan., 1979 Sponsored by The University of Chicago Law School Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/467604 Views: 12Total views on this site Citations: 24Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1979 The University of Chicago Law SchoolPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Alice Guerra, Barbara Luppi, and Francesco Parisi Accuracy of Verdicts under Different Jury Sizes and Voting Rules, Supreme Court Economic Review 28 (Sep 2020): 221–236.https://doi.org/10.1086/709734Bryan C. McCannon, Paul Walker Individual Competence and Committee Decision Making: Experimental Evidence, Southern Economic Journal 86, no.44 (Feb 2020): 1531–1558.https://doi.org/10.1002/soej.12424Alice Guerra, Barbara Luppi, Francesco Parisi Jury Size and Voting Requirements for Criminal Convictions: Assessing the Tradeoffs, SSRN Electronic Journal 258 (Jan 2019).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3432392Alice Guerra, Barbara Luppi, Francesco Parisi Optimal Jury Design: Rethinking Standards of Proof, Jury Size and Voting Rules, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2017).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2973943Bryan C. McCannon, Paul Walker Endogenous competence and a limit to the Condorcet Jury Theorem, Public Choice 169, no.1-21-2 (Sep 2016): 1–18.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-016-0366-zMichelle Baddeley, Sophia Parkinson Group decision-making: An economic analysis of social influence and individual difference in experimental juries, The Journal of Socio-Economics 41, no.55 (Oct 2012): 558–573.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2012.04.023Ram Orzach, Stephen J. Spurr Lesser-included offenses, International Review of Law and Economics 28, no.44 (Dec 2008): 239–245.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2008.07.010William S. Neilson, Harold Winter Votes based on protracted deliberations, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 67, no.11 (Jul 2008): 308–321.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2006.10.007Eric Helland, Yaron Raviv The optimal jury size when jury deliberation follows a random walk, Public Choice 134, no.3-43-4 (Aug 2007): 255–262.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-007-9222-5William S. Neilson, Harold Winter The Elimination of Hung Juries: Retrials and Nonunanimous Verdicts, International Review of Law and Economics 25, no.11 (Mar 2005): 1–19.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2005.05.004Eric A. Helland, Yaron Raviv The Optimal Jury Size when Jury Deliberation Follows a Random Walk, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2005).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.904356Winston T.H. Koh Optimal Sequential Decision Architectures and the Robustness of Hierarchies and Polyarchies, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2003).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.413683Edward P. Schwartz, Warren F. Schwartz Deciding Who Decides Who Dies: Capital Punishment as a Social Choice Problem, Legal Theory 1, no.22 (Feb 2009): 113–147.https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352325200000112Timur Kuran The role of deception in political competition, (Jan 1991): 71–95.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-0645-7_5Nancy Pennington, Reid Hastie Practical Implications of Psychological Research on Juror and Jury Decision Making, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 16, no.11 (Jul 2016): 90–105.https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167290161007Norbert L Kerr, Robert J MacCoun, Christine H Hansen, Janet A Hymes Gaining and losing social support: Momentum in decision-making groups, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 23, no.22 (Mar 1987): 119–145.https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(87)90028-XTimur Kuran Chameleon voters and public choice, Public Choice 53, no.11 (Jan 1987): 53–78.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00115654Morris H. DeGroot THE USE OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES IN JURY SELECTION11This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation unger grant DMS-8320618., (Jan 1987): 243–271.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-279450-6.50020-8Shmuel Nitzan, Jacob Paroush The significance of independent decisions in uncertain dichotomous choice situations, Theory and Decision 17, no.11 (Jul 1984): 47–60.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00140055Alvin K. Klevorick, Michael Rothschild, Christopher Winship Information processing and jury decisionmaking, Journal of Public Economics 23, no.33 (Apr 1984): 245–278.https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2727(84)90031-8Lloyd Shapley, Bernard Grofman Optimizing group judgmental accuracy in the presence of interdependencies, Public Choice 43, no.33 (Nov 2011): 329–343.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00118940Bernard Grofman, Guillermo Owen, Scott L. Feld Thirteen theorems in search of the truth, Theory and Decision 15, no.33 (Sep 1983): 261–278.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00125672Bernard Grofman Mathematical Models of Juror and Jury Decision-Making, (Jan 1981): 305–351.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-3767-6_9BERNARD GROFMAN THE SLIPPERY SLOPE: Jury Size and Jury Verdict Requirements—Legal and Social Science Approaches, Law & Policy 2, no.33 (Jul 1980): 285–304.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9930.1980.tb00217.x