Research confirms that unanimous twelve-member juries deliberate more thoroughly and inclusively.

Evidence

Empirical studies have largely confirmed these criticisms. They have shown that permitting nonunanimous verdicts reduces the frequency of hung juries in criminal, but not in civil, cases. Studies have also found that twelve-member juries and those deciding unanimously tend to deliberate longer before reaching their verdicts, which may suggest a more thorough consideration of the evidence. Finally, studies have discovered that the variety of viewpoints tends to increase on twelve-member juries; further, on unanimous juries, jurors holding minority viewpoints are more likely to participate actively in discussions and be listened to than on majority-rule juries. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 876

Categorization

• XREF: Empirical jury research connects to broader political science literature on how decision rules shape group outcomes beyond the legal case. — connects to: Racially diverse juries both reduce bias and improve decision quality — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law: A Definitive Look at…, 916; Diverse juries produce fewer but more thoughtful juror responses; The Supreme Court allows non-12-member and non-unanimous state juries — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1423
• QUESTION: The nonunanimous-verdict effect applies to criminal but not civil hung-jury rates - worth investigating why the domain differs.

Broader Connections

• The Supreme Court allows non-12-member and non-unanimous state juries #qualifies (0.80) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1423
• Diverse juries produce fewer but more thoughtful juror responses #expands (0.78)
• Racially diverse juries both reduce bias and improve decision quality #expands (0.72) — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 916