well, there is nonetheless room for improvement. Psychological
research studies have suggested several ways to enhance jury
trials, including providing preliminary jury instructions (pre-
trial); allowing jurors to take notes and ask questions, providing
midtrial summaries and simplifying jury instructions (during
trial); and debriefing jurors who have served on difficult, stress-
ful cases (posttrial). These innovations can improve the process
of decision making and trial outcomes while also enhancing
juror satisfaction. In addition, by documenting various factors
that influence jurors’ decisions, researchers can contribute to a
better understanding of the basic social and cognitive processes
involved when people make collective decisions on the basis of
complex and contradictory information.
In the future, juries and judges will confront a number of
new challenges that demand continued research efforts.
Increasingly, trials include visual and digital evidence presen-
tations such as animations, video recordings, and virtual-reality
reenactments. How jurors attend to and process this informa-
tion during trial and rely on it during deliberation will concern
future legal psychologists. Of particular concern to courts is
jurors’ increasing use of cell phones, the Internet, and social
networking sites to communicate about a trial, conduct trial-
related research, and communicate with other jurors. The
implications of these phenomena, and research on their effects,
will inform future policies regarding jury trials. Thus, psycho-
logical research will continue to have much to offer, and take
from, the jury system.
Recommended Reading
Greene, E., & Bornstein, B.H. (2003). (See References). A summary
of empirical research on jury decision making in civil cases.
Lieberman, J., & Krauss, D. (2009). (See References). Application of
psychological principles and theories to various aspects of juror
and jury behavior.
Vidmar, N., & Hans, V.P. (2007). American juries: The verdict.
Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. A historical and contemporary
overview of the jury, containing case anecdotes as well as empiri-
cal research.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest with respect
to their authorship or the publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or
authorship of this article.
References
Bornstein, B.H., & Greene, E. (in press). Consulting on damage
awards. In R.L. Wiener & B.H. Bornstein (Eds.), Handbook of trial
consulting. New York, NY: Springer.
Bornstein, B.H., & Robicheaux, T.R. (2008). Crisis, what crisis? Per-
ception and reality in civil justice. In B.H. Bornstein, R.L. Wiener,
R.F. Schopp & S.L. Willborn (Eds.), Civil juries and civil justice:
Psychological and legal perspectives. (pp. 1–19). New York, NY:
Springer.
Carlson, K., & Russo, J. (2001). Biased interpretation of evidence
by mock jurors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,
7,91–103.
Devine, D.J., Buddenbaum, J., Houp, S., Stolle, D., &
Studebaker, N. (2007). Deliberation quality: A preliminary
examination in criminal juries. Journal of Empirical Legal
Studies, 4,273–303.
Devine, D.J., Buddenbaum, J., Houp, S., Studebaker, N., & Stolle, D.
(2009). Strength of evidence, extraevidentiary influence, and the
liberation hypothesis: Data from the field. Law and Human Beha-
vior, 33, 136–148.
Eisenberg, T., Hannaford-Agor, P.L., Hans, V.P., Waters, N.L.,
Munsterman, G.T., Schwab, S.J., & Wells, M.T. (2005). Judge-
jury agreement in criminal cases: A partial replication of Kalven and
Zeisel’s. The American Jury. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2,
171–206.
Feigenson, N. (2010). Emotional influences on judgments of legal
blame: How they happen, whether they should, and what to do
about it. In B.H. Bornstein & R.L. Wiener (Eds.), Emotion and the
law: Psychological perspectives (pp. 45–96). New York, NY:
Springer.
Greene, E. (2009). Psychological issues i n civil trials. In J.D.
Lieberman & D.A. Krauss (Eds.), Jury Psychology: Social
Aspects of Trial Pr ocesse s. (Vol.1, pp. 183–205). Burlington,
VT: Ashgate.
Greene, E., & Bornstein, B.H. (2000). Precious little guidance: Jury
instructions on damage awards. Psychology, Public Policy, and
Law, 6, 743–768.
Greene, E., & Bornstein, B.H. (2003). Determining damages: The psy-
chology of jury awards. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Horowitz, I., & Bordens, K. (2000). The consolidation of plaintiffs:
The effects of number of plaintiffs on jurors’ liability decisions,
damage awards, and cognitive processing of evidence. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 85, 909–918.
Lieberman, J., & Krauss, D. (2009). Jury psychology: Social aspects
of the trial process. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
MacCoun, R. & Kerr, N. (1988). Asymmetric influence in mock jury
deliberation: Jurors’ bias for leniency. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 54, 21–33.
Miller, M.K., & Bornstein, B.H. (2006). The use of religion in
death penalty sentencing trials. Law and Human Behavior, 30,
675–684.
Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1992). Explaining the evidence: Tests of
the story model for juror decision making. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 62, 189–206.
Salerno, J., & Diamond, S. (2010). The promise of a cognitive per-
spective on jury deliberation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,
17, 174–179.
Smith, V. (1991). Prototypes in the courtroom: Lay representation of
legal concepts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 61,
857–872.
Steblay, N., Hosch, H.M., Culhane, S.E., & McWethy, A. (2006). The
impact on juror verdicts of judicial instruction to disregard
66 Bornstein and Greene