Four Models of Jury Democracy

This article proposes a theory of “representative deliberation” to describe the democratic ideal that jurors seek to practice. Given its long history, the jury does not fit neatly into any one of the most familiar types of democracy, such as direct democracy, representative democracy, or deliberative democracy. However, the jury does hold together elements of all of these theories. In line with direct democracy, we select jurors from the people-at-large. In line with representative democracy, we seek to draw jurors from a representative cross-section of the community. In line with deliberative democracy, jurors talk as well as vote and seek to change one another’s minds. The resulting hybrid is what this article calls “representative deliberation.” The core idea is that deliberation works best on diverse panels where jurors from different backgrounds bring different views and life experiences to bear on the impartial consideration of the evidence. The article reviews empirical studies supporting the theory of representative deliberation and proposes changes in jury selection to remove obstacles to empaneling representative juries

Anger at Angry Jurors

12 Angry Men portrayed the lone holdout juror as essential to the jury\u27s protection of the individual against injustice. But recently a number of empirical and normative questions have been raised about the holdout juror. Some studies go so far as to suggest that most holdout jurors are motivated by unreasonable doubts or are engaged in unlawful acts of jury nullification. The result, according to such studies, is that hung juries are on the rise. After reviewing these studies, this article concludes that there is no reliable evidence establishing a national trend toward a rise in hung juries, although some jurisdictions are experiencing a noticeable spike. This article also concludes that data is also lacking to establish a rise in instances of jury nullification and that the independence of juries is threatened by treating holdout jurors as if they were engaged in misconduct

Four Models of Jury Democracy

This article proposes a theory of “representative deliberation” to describe the democratic ideal that jurors seek to practice. Given its long history, the jury does not fit neatly into any one of the most familiar types of democracy, such as direct democracy, representative democracy, or deliberative democracy. However, the jury does hold together elements of all of these theories. In line with direct democracy, we select jurors from the people-at-large. In line with representative democracy, we seek to draw jurors from a representative cross-section of the community. In line with deliberative democracy, jurors talk as well as vote and seek to change one another’s minds. The resulting hybrid is what this article calls “representative deliberation.” The core idea is that deliberation works best on diverse panels where jurors from different backgrounds bring different views and life experiences to bear on the impartial consideration of the evidence. The article reviews empirical studies supporting the theory of representative deliberation and proposes changes in jury selection to remove obstacles to empaneling representative juries

Anger at Angry Jurors

12 Angry Men portrayed the lone holdout juror as essential to the jury\u27s protection of the individual against injustice. But recently a number of empirical and normative questions have been raised about the holdout juror. Some studies go so far as to suggest that most holdout jurors are motivated by unreasonable doubts or are engaged in unlawful acts of jury nullification. The result, according to such studies, is that hung juries are on the rise. After reviewing these studies, this article concludes that there is no reliable evidence establishing a national trend toward a rise in hung juries, although some jurisdictions are experiencing a noticeable spike. This article also concludes that data is also lacking to establish a rise in instances of jury nullification and that the independence of juries is threatened by treating holdout jurors as if they were engaged in misconduct

Jury Selection in the Weeds: Whither the Democratic Shore?

This Article reports on four federal jury challenges in which the trial judge or defendants retained the author to provide research on jury selection plans. The research shows a persistent and substantial loss of representation for African Americans and Hispanics on federal juries, even though no intentional discrimination took place. Problems with undeliverable jury summonses, as well as failure to respond to summonses, were the main causes of departures from the ideal of cross-sectional jury selection. However, a cramped understanding of what it takes for a defendant to prove that minority jurors were systematically excluded, as required by Duren v. Missouri, kept three of the four judges in our challenges from responding to the problems. This Article argues for a legal change in the Duren test so as to enable federal courts to construct representative jury wheels

Defect-induced modification of low-lying excitons and valley selectivity in monolayer transition metal dichalcogenides

We study the effect of point-defect chalcogen vacancies on the optical properties of monolayer transition metal dichalcogenides using ab initio GW and Bethe-Salpeter equation calculations. We find that chalcogen vacancies introduce unoccupied in-gap states and occupied resonant defect states within the quasiparticle continuum of the valence band. These defect states give rise to a number of strongly-bound defect excitons and hybridize with excitons of the pristine system, reducing the valley-selective circular dichroism. Our results suggest a pathway to tune spin-valley polarization and other optical properties through defect engineering