Abstract
Data collected in four jurisdictions by the National Center for State Courts allows us to examine the question of judge and jury disagreement about guilt through a consideration of the views of jurors as well as judges. Using this data, we test in a modern context the hypothesis that the jury's embrace of values -- as opposed to its different assessment of the evidence -- explains why juries acquit when judges would convict. We find that legal and extralegal factors affect both judge and jury decisions about guilt, that both sets of factors predict disagreement in different contexts, and the pattern of agreement versus disagreement is more complex than suggested by the liberation hypothesis.
Keywords
Defendants, criminals
Subject Categories
Judges, Jurors, Jury, Guilt, Verdicts
Disciplines
Criminal Law
Publisher
Northwestern University School of Law
Publication Date
Fall 2010
Rights Information
Authors retain copyright.
Rights Holder
Amy Farrell and Daniel Givelber
Permanent URL
http://hdl.handle.net/2047/d20001194
Recommended Citation
100 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1549 (2010).
Click button above to open, or right-click to save.
Notes
Originally published in The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, v.100, no.4, pp.1549-1586, Fall 2010.