#87: How Juries Decide with Mikaela Spruill

Opinion Science

Content provided by Andy Luttrell. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Andy Luttrell or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://podcastplayer.com/legal.

1+ y ago 56:01

MP3•Episode home

Mikaela Spruill studies juries and the legal system’s role in sustaining social inequalities. She’s a postdoctoral fellow in criminal justice with SPARQ at Stanford University. In our conversation, Mikaela shares the benefits and drawbacks of juries in the courtroom, how scientists study jury decision-making, and how jurors apply very specific legal standards to interpreting the facts of a case.
Things that come up in this episode

A very brief history of juries (Alschuler & Deiss, 1994; Carey, 1994; Massachusetts Office of Jury Commissioner)
A summary of early research in jury decision-making (Devine et al., 2001) and the University of Chicago Jury Project (Broeder, 1959; Cornwell, 2010)
The quick clip in the intro (“I’m just saying a coincidence is possible”) is from the 1957 film, 12 Angry Men.
A summary of research on jury decision-making (Spruill & Hans, in press)
How jurors apply the “objectively reasonable” standard to interpreting the facts of a case (Spruill & Lewis, 2022; 2023)

For a transcript of this episode, visit this episode's page at: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episodes/
Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.

147 episodes

#Science #Social Sciences #Psychology #Opinions #Persuasion #Communication #Social Psychology #Public Opinion #Podcasting Education #Andy Luttrell