Judge-Jury Agreement in Criminal Cases: A Partial Replication of Kalven and Zeisel\u27s The American Jury

This study uses a new criminal case data set to partially replicate Kalven and Zeisel\u27s classic study of judge-jury agreement. The data show essentially the same rate of judge-jury agreement as did Kalven and Zeisel for cases tried almost 50 years ago. This study also explores judge-jury agreement as a function of evidentiary strength (as reported by both judges and juries), evidentiary complexity (as reported by both judges and juries), legal complexity (as reported by judges), and locale. Regardless of which adjudicator\u27s view of evidentiary strength is used, judges tend to convict more than juries in cases of middle evidentiary strength. Judges tend to acquit more than juries in cases in which judges regard the evidence favoring the prosecution as weak. Judges tend to convict more than juries in cases in which judges regard the evidence favoring the prosecution as strong. Rates of adjudicator agreement are thus partly a function of which adjudicator\u27s view of evidentiary strength is used, a result not available to Kalven and Zeisel, who were limited to judges\u27 views of the evidence. We find little evidence that evidentiary complexity or legal complexity help explain rates of judge-jury disagreement. Rather, the data support the view that judges have a lower conviction threshold than juries. Local variation exists among the sites studied. The influences of juror race, sex, and education are also considered

Intuition: Myth or a Decision-making Tool?

Faced with today’s ill-structured business environment of fast-paced change and rising uncertainty, organizations have been searching for management tools that will perform satisfactorily under such ambiguous conditions. In the arena of managerial decision making, one of the approaches being assessed is the use of intuition. Based on our definition of intuition as a non-sequential information-processing mode, which comprises both cognitive and affective elements and results in direct knowing without any use of conscious reasoning, we develop a testable model of integrated analytical and intuitive decision making and propose ways to measure the use of intuition

The Restyled Federal Rules of Evidence

A lightly edited transcript of the Symposium held at the William & Mary School of Law on October 28, 2011

The Restyled Federal Rules of Evidence

A lightly edited transcript of the Symposium held at the William & Mary School of Law on October 28, 2011

Choosing Among Alternative New Product Development Projects: The Role of Heuristics

The initial screening decision that marketing managers make is critical. It requires the selection of which innovation project to invest in, which is fundamental to marketing success. However, our knowledge of how managers make these decisions and how this impacts performance is limited. By drawing upon cognitive psychology and the managerial decision-making literature, we address two critical questions. The first question focuses on identifying specific decisionmaking types (e.g., specific heuristics, intuition) used when making an innovation-screening decision. Based on this analysis and prior research, we develop specific decision-maker profiles about how an individual manager decides. The second research question is about connecting these profiles with performance. Specifically, it addresses what the consequences of different decision-maker profiles are on the perceived accuracy and speed of decision-making? Data were collected from 122 senior managers in these industries. We find that when heuristics are used alone, or concurrently with intuition, managers make decisions that are as accurate as when they rely on analytical decision-making. However, the process is significantly faster. The findings provide an important step towards a more comprehensive understanding of decisionmaking at the front-end of innovation

Jury Systems Around the World

Lay citizens participate as decision makers in the legal systems of many countries. This review describes the different approaches that countries employ to integrate lay decision makers, contrasting in particular the use of juries composed of all citizens with mixed decision-making bodies of lay and law-trained judges. The review discusses research on the benefits and drawbacks of lay legal decision making as well as international support for the use of ordinary citizens as legal decision makers, with an eye to explaining a recent increase in new jury systems around the world. The review calls for more comparative work on diverse approaches to lay participation, examining how different methods of including lay participation promote or detract from fact finding, legal consciousness, civic engagement, and citizen power