Syllabus

AmericanJury topics of interest

Historical evolution of the jury

What is the reasoning behind the size of the jury? e.g. why 12?

Jury selection: The Nuts and Bolts

(How jury selection works) - Claimed by 1636

Psychological phenomenon related to decision making

Claimed by Runaway Jurists

Jury consultants: what they do and what they can tell us about how jurors think

Claimed by TeamNerfSword

Portrayal of juries in the media -Comparative study of the role of juries in other questions

Claimed by The Rural Juror

==how lawyers choose which juries they want based on the type of case== Claimed by the Bedazzlers

  -Bedazzlers, your topic is essentially the same as our topic on what jury consultants do.  Since we claimed our topic first, can you change your topic to something else?  Thanks.  -TeamNerfSword

What are jurors automatically excluded for? Should they be?

Claimed by the Leftovers

Empirical and comparative aspects of the jury, i.e. US jury vs. other countries

Claimed by Leftovers

-Avoiding jury duty -

Claimed by Destiny's Child

==Fear on the jury. Ex. the Wire. What if the jury is afraid to convict?== Claimed by the Leftovers

"Jury-type" voting in reality TV shows (Survivor, Biggest Loser, etc.) compared to actual juries -

Claimed by Destiny's Child

Why should jurors have make their decisions ONLY on the evidence presented and not on what they already know? How and why self informed juries became bad.

Claimed by Leftovers

Unanimous verdict requirements--- good or bad?

Should there be competence requirements for jurors? Would this result in a weeding out of minorities?

    Anonymous: That presupposes lower competence for minorities
    Anonymous: I don't see the correlation between one's status as a minority and competence. Explain.
    Anonymous: I think maybe we're confusing formal education with competence.
    Anonymous: A lot of minorities do not have access to education. Maybe that is what that person is trying to say... not that minorities are not as smart.
    Anonymous: I normally associate the idea of "competence" with some sort of natural ability not necessarily related to level or quality of education. However, I understand your point.
    Anonymous: In the current state of our country, there are more minorities who do not have access to the best schools, etc. That is all I meant. If it were truly a basic competence test, no problems there.
    Anonymous: Should we be concerned that this type of requirement would lead to someone not having a trial by "a jury of peers"

Juries and damages awards. Too much? Judicial corrections of excessive damages

Psychological and cognitive aspects of jury decision-making. (tentatively claimed by 1636)

Will this result in a more disproportionate number of minorities being put in jail? Is there reason to think it would not?

No level of education requirement on jurors. Are we comfortable with that?

Legal theory of jury nullification - if jury nullification is permitted by law, then is it really lawlessness?

-Role of jury in civil cases vs. criminal cases -Possibility of having expert juries.

Why do defendants sometimes choose to waive their right to a jury trial and instead opt for a bench trial?

How do you find a fair jury in highly publicized cases where the risk of jury contamination is high? Claimed by the Leftovers

Juries as portrayed in the media - also claimed by The Rural Juror - we are everywhere

How juries process expert testimony, evidence

Access to jury; structural problems at state-level, e.g. small claims courts –

Strategizing in jury selection - by attorneys, consultants - High-profile cases - special considerations?

Continuing to answer the questions raised by the lynch cases;

The importance of the rule of law and the problems posed by jury nullification: law as an expression of the will of the people; the need for immutable, enforceable guiding principles

How effective are juries in complex litigation settings? (ex. patent cases) to what extent are they influenced/manipulated by expert testimony?

What if the case is complex and the people on the jury do not understand the issues in the case?

The jury as a blackbox to give "moral certainty" to convictions. Good or bad? Alternatives?