Smaller and nonunanimous juries produce less thorough deliberations and more convictions.
Evidence
Critics of the changes in jury size and decision rules have argued that the changes affect jury deliberations and the outcome of cases. A six-member jury is likely to be less diverse and, therefore, less representative of the community than a twelve-member jury. Furthermore, decreasing the size of the jury reduces the likelihood of hung juries, because a single juror is unlikely to hold out against group sentiment or to find allies on a six-member jury. Also, when nonunanimous verdicts are permitted, the majority on a jury need not persuade holdouts that the verdict is correct. This not only means that nonunanimous juries are less likely to hang but also that they are less likely to listen carefully to the holdouts’ perspectives on the case. Finally, critics argue that nonunanimous juries convict defendants who are not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, citing the reluctance of some jurors to convict as conclusive evidence that a reasonable doubt exists. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 875
Categorization
- XREF: connects to: The Supreme Court allows states to use juries smaller than twelve and nonunanimous verdicts. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 873; Diversity improves deliberations partly by making White jurors work harder