DOI: 10.3886/icpsr03689.v1
title: Evaluation of Hung Juries in Bronx County, New York, Los Angeles County, California, Maricopa County, Arizona, and Washington, DC, 2000-2001
title: Version 1

description: This study was undertaken for the purpose of providing an
 empirical picture of hung juries. Researchers were able to secure the
 cooperation of four courts: (1) Bronx County Supreme Court in New
 York, (2) Los Angeles County Superior Court in California, (3)
 Maricopa County Superior Court in Arizona, and (4) District of
 Columbia Superior Court in Washington, DC. The four sites were
 responsible for distributing and collecting questionnaire packets to
 all courtrooms hearing non-capital felony jury cases. Each packet
 contained a case data form requesting information about case
 characteristics (Part 1) and outcomes (Part 2), as well as survey
 questionnaires for the judges (Part 3), attorneys (Part 4), and jurors
 (Part 5). The case data form requested type of charge, sentence range,
 jury's decision, demographic information about the defendant(s) and
 the victim(s), voir dire (jury selection process), trial evidence and
 procedures, and jury deliberations. The judge questionnaire probed
 for evaluation of the evidence, case complexity, attorney skill,
 likelihood that the jury would hang, reaction to the verdict, opinions
 regarding the hung jury rate in the jurisdiction, and experience on
 the bench. The attorney questionnaire requested information assessing
 the voir dire, case complexity, attorney skill, evaluation of the
 evidence, reaction to the verdict, opinions regarding the hung jury
 rate in the jurisdiction, and experience in legal practice. If the
 jury hung, attorneys also provided their views about why the jury was
 unable to reach a verdict. Finally, the juror questionnaire requested
 responses regarding case complexity, attorney skill, evaluation of the
 evidence, formation of opinions, dynamics of the deliberations
 including the first and final votes, juror participation, conflict,
 reaction to the verdict, opinions about applicable law, assessment of
criminal justice in the community, and demographic information.
description: In the mid to late 1990s, the criminal justice
 community developed an intense interest in the phenomenon of jury
 deadlock, more commonly known as a "hung jury." Several factors
 prompted this interest. A number of communities, especially in
 California, were reporting that more and more criminal jury trials
 were routinely resulting in mistrials due to jury deadlock. Other
 urban areas including the District of Columbia and Manhattan, New
 York, began reporting similar trends regarding hung jury rates. These
 increasing numbers raised significant concerns about the monetary
 costs associated with retrying cases as well as the emotional toll on
 victims and witnesses and potential public safety costs associated
 with criminal defendants serving less time in prison due to the
 failure of the jury to convict. Despite new of proposals designed to
 reduce the number of hung juries, no government agency or research
 institution has ever determined a "normal" hung jury rate or standards
 for an acceptable range of hung jury rates. Consequently, it is
 difficult to compare current hung jury rates to a baseline. Although
 there is much speculation about the factors that contribute to jury
 deadlock (evidentiary problems such as witness credibility, jury
 misunderstanding of evidence or substantive law, racial conflict, jury
 nullification), very little empirical research exists to verify these
 claims. This study was undertaken for the purpose of providing an
empirical picture of hung juries.
description: Originally, researchers envisioned their project
 as a two-phase process. In the first phase, researchers proposed to
 conduct a broad-based survey of hung jury rates in state and federal
 courts while the second phase would consist of an in-depth examination
 of jury behavior in ten jurisdictions to compare case and jury
 characteristics in felony trials that resulted in a verdict to those
 that resulted in jury deadlock. The first phase turned out to be
 critically important to the project. Ultimately, researchers were able
 to collect and compile statistics about hung juries from state courts
 and from prosecutors' offices in 30 jurisdictions and from all federal
 courts. However, in doing so, they discovered an important source of
 variation across jurisdictions -- the definition of a "hung jury." In
 some jurisdictions, a jury was counted as "hung" if it failed to reach
 a verdict on any charge or on any defendant. In other jurisdictions, a
 hung jury was only counted if it hung on the most serious charge. Some
 only counted a hung jury if it hung on all counts or on all
 defendants. Obviously, these disparate definitions had a significant
 effect on hung jury rates and made it very difficult to compare rates
 across jurisdictions. The research team wanted to be be able to
 capture this degree of detail in the second phase of the study. The
 second phase of the study (comprising the data in this collection) was
 intended to compare various characteristics of jury trials that
 resulted in deadlock to those that resulted in verdicts across at
 least ten jurisdictions. However, some courts declined to participate
 due to concerns about the administrative burden of data collection on
 their staff. A more significant issue, however, was judicial
 sensitivity to the inviolability of jury deliberations, especially in
 felony jury trials. In spite of various procedures that researchers
 put in place to protect the confidentiality of the data, many courts
 were concerned that the information collected from jurors might
 provide a basis for convicted defendants to appeal the verdict.
 Researchers were able to secure the cooperation of only four courts:
 (1) Bronx County Supreme Court in New York, (2) Los Angeles County
 Superior Court in California, (3) Maricopa County Superior Court in
 Arizona, and (4) District of Columbia Superior Court in Washington,
 DC. The four sites were responsible for distributing and collecting
 questionnaire packets in all courtrooms hearing non-capital felony
 jury cases. Misdemeanor cases were excluded because hung juries in
 serious felony trials are typically of greater concern to justice
 system policymakers. Capital cases were also excluded because of the
 severity of the sanction and the potential that confidential juror
 questionnaire data might be requested to support an appeal from a
 conviction. The data collection protocol and questionnaire materials
 underwent a pretest in Los Angeles in July 1999. Fifty trial
 packages containing questionnaires and case data forms were
 distributed to judges in non-capital felony trials. The research staff
 obtained data on 16 completed trials including two hung jury
 trials. In December 1999, the project Advisory Committee offered its
 recommendations for modifications to the survey instruments and data
 collection protocols. Based on these recommendations, the surveys were
 revised to more accurately capture the nuances of measuring hung jury
 rates. In addition, one of the questionnaires that was to be
 administered to jurors was revised to avoid responses that would
 provide grounds for a defendant's inquiry into the validity of the
 verdict. Finally, data collection protocols were refined to increase
 the return rate of survey packets. Each packet contained a case data
 form requesting information about case characteristics (Part 1) and
 outcomes (Part 2) as well as instructions and questionnaires for the
 judge (Part 3), attorneys (Part 4), and jurors (Part 5). Judges and
 key court personnel were briefed on the project and instructed as to
 how the packet distribution was to occur. Packets were sent from the
 jury assembly room to the courtrooms with the panel for voir dire
 (jury selection process). Once the jury was selected, court personnel
 distributed the packets to the judge and/or court clerk. If the case
 proceeded through to jury deliberations and was not prematurely ended
 by a plea agreement, dismissal, or mistrial for some reason other than
 the jury's inability to arrive at a unanimous verdict, the judge was
 asked to complete the judge survey. In addition, either the clerk or
 the judge was to complete a questionnaire on the general case
 information using a case data survey form. Once the jury retired to
 deliberate, court personnel distributed the judge and attorney
 questionnaires. The judges and attorneys were asked to complete the
 questionnaires in two stages, answering some questions prior to the
 jury decision and the remaining questions after the jury rendered its
 verdict or the case was declared a mistrial. The court personnel
 distributed the final set of questionnaires to the jurors after the
 verdict was announced or a mistrial declared. To protect
 confidentiality, respondents were provided blank envelopes in which to
 place the completed questionnaire. Court staff collected the completed
 questionnaires and gave these to the designated court liaison for each
 site, who forwarded the cases on to the project staff for data entry
 and analysis. Because the study design included collection of
 information from key trial participants, including jurors, a protocol
 was developed that balanced the importance of confidentiality and the
 defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. The National Institute of Justice
 (NIJ) regulations required that the research team maintain the
 confidentiality of study data and prohibit their use in adjudicatory
 proceedings. The purpose of these regulations is to protect the safety
 and privacy of study participants (in this instance the judges,
 attorneys, and jurors). However, the Sixth Amendment right of criminal
 plaintiffs to a fair and impartial jury supersedes any NIJ
 regulations. To protect jurors' privacy in the event of these
 competing demands, the research team revised certain survey questions,
 following the pilot test phase, to eliminate questions that would
 provide a prima facie basis for an appeal (e.g., timing of opinion
 formation). They also stripped any identifying case information from
 the questionnaires and destroyed the hard copies after the data were
 entered into the database housed at the National Center for State
Courts.
description: Part 1, Case Data, variables include the race and
 gender of victim(s) and defendant(s), size of panel from which the
 jury was selected, length of the voir dire process, who conducted the
 voir dire, reason a juror was struck, number of jurors struck by
 prosecution and by defendant, length of trial, number of prosecution
 witnesses, prosecution expert witnesses, prosecution exhibits, defense
 witnesses, defense expert witnesses, and defense exhibits, whether
 juror notebooks were provided, total number of questions submitted by
 jurors to witnesses, length of deliberation, number of deliberating
 jurors, and how the foreperson was selected. Variables for Part 2,
 Count Sheet Data, include case type, sentence, and total number of
 convictions, acquittals, and hung juries. Part 3, Judge Survey Data,
 variables include evaluation of the evidence, case complexity,
 attorney skill, likelihood that the jury would hang, reaction to the
 verdict, opinion regarding the hung jury rate in the jurisdiction, and
 experience on the bench. Part 4, Attorney Survey Data, variables
 include assessment of voir dire, case complexity, attorney skill,
 evaluation of the evidence, reaction to the verdict, opinions
 regarding the hung jury rate in the jurisdiction, and experience in
 legal practice. If the jury hung, attorneys also provided their views
 about why the jury was unable to reach a verdict. The age and gender
 of each attorney is also present in the file. Variables for Part 5,
 Juror Survey Data, include the complexity of the trial, whether all
 evidence was presented, and degree of ease with which the jury
 understood the evidence, experts, and judge's instructions. Other
 variables focused on the importance of police testimony, how
 believable the police, victims, and defendants were, the skill of the
 prosecutor and defense attorney, the strength of the prosecution's and
 defense's case, ease in deciding a verdict, whether the first vote or
 final vote was for a conviction, guilty verdict, or undecided, how
 influential the juror thought they were during deliberations,
 perception of other jury members, whether there was any conflict on
 the jury, level of satisfaction with the deliberations, past
 experience with being on a jury, and whether they were the
 foreperson. Demographic variables include race, age, gender, religious
 beliefs, highest level of education, job status, and income for each
juror.
description: Response Rates: The response rate for Parts 1 and 2 was 89
 percent. For Part 3, the response rate was 91 percent. The response
 rate for Part 4 was 69 percent for defense attorneys and 72 percent
 for prosecuting attorneys. The response rate for Part 5 was 80
percent.
description: Presence of Common Scales: Several Likert-type scales were used.
description: The sites were selected through convenience sampling.
 Site selection was based on several criteria. First, each site had to
 have a sufficiently high volume of felony jury trials to permit data
 collection within a reasonable period of time. Second, court personnel
 had to be willing to cooperate with data collection, including the
 court's agreement to adhere to privacy and confidentiality
 protocols. Finally, institutional characteristics were considered. Two
 sites were included because of reported concerns about hung jury rates
 (Los Angeles and Washington, DC). Arizona was chosen to examine the
 potential impact of an innovative procedure that permits judges to
 allow further evidence and arguments when a jury reports that it is
 deadlocked. Researchers approached the New York State Office of Court
 Administration for suggestions on high-volume courts in New York City,
 and they were helpful in securing the cooperation of the Bronx County
Supreme Court.
description: Datasets: 
DS0: Study-Level Files
DS1: Case Data
DS2: Count Sheet Data
DS3: Judge Survey Data
DS4: Attorney Survey Data
DS5: Juror Survey Data
description: Courtrooms in four counties (Bronx County, New York, Los
 Angeles County, California, Maricopa County, Arizona, and Washington,
DC) hearing non-capital felony jury cases. Smallest Geographic Unit: none
description: The user guide, codebook, and data collection
 instruments are provided by ICPSR as Portable Document Format (PDF)
 files. The PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated
 and can be accessed using PDF reader software, such as the Adobe
 Acrobat Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the Acrobat
Reader is provided on the ICPSR Web site.