Source: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/3689?geography=New+York+(state)&dataFormat%5B0%5D=STATA&paging.startRow=1
Timestamp: 2013-12-12 16:44:49
Document Index: 23927869

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 5', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 5', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 5', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 5', 'arts 1', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 5']

Evaluation of Hung Juries in Bronx County, New York, Los Angeles County, California, Maricopa County, Arizona, and Washington, DC, 2000-2001
(5 datasets; 9,303 KB)	Table of Contents
study: Evaluation of Hung Juries in Bronx County, New York, Los Angeles County, California, Maricopa County, Arizona, and Washington, DC, 2000-2001 >
Evaluation of Hung Juries in Bronx County, New York, Los Angeles County, California, Maricopa County, Arizona, and Washington, DC, 2000-2001 (ICPSR 3689) Principal Investigator(s):
Hannaford-Agor, Paula L., National Center for State Courts; Hans, Valerie P., National Center for State Courts; Mott, Nicole L., National Center for State Courts; Munsterman, G. Thomas, National Center for State Courts
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... (more info)
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.
DS1: Case Data
All Dataset Files (4,389 KB)
DS2: Count Sheet Data
All Dataset Files (4,082 KB)
DS3: Judge Survey Data
All Dataset Files (4,131 KB)
DS4: Attorney Survey Data
All Dataset Files (4,159 KB)
DS5: Juror Survey Data
All Dataset Files (8,174 KB)
Hannaford-Agor, Paula L., Valerie P. Hans, Nicole L. Mott, and G. Thomas Munsterman. EVALUATION OF HUNG JURIES IN BRONX COUNTY, NEW YORK, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, AND WASHINGTON, DC, 2000-2001. ICPSR version. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts [producer], 2003. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2003. doi:10.3886/ICPSR03689.v1
Persistent URL: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03689.v1
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice (98-IJ-CX-0048)
Subject Terms: courts, felony offenses, hung juries, jury deliberations, jury instructions, jury selection, mistrials, verdicts
Geographic Coverage: Arizona, California, New York (state), United States, Washington, DC
Unit of Observation: court cases
Universe: Courtrooms in four counties (Bronx County, New York, Los
Angeles County, California, Maricopa County, Arizona, and Washington,
DC) hearing non-capital felony jury cases.
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
Study Purpose: 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.
Study Design: 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
Sample: 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
A court clerk and/or judge completed the survey
information used in Part 1 and collected the administrative records
data used in Part 2. Self-enumerated survey questionnaires were
administered to judges in Part 3, to attorneys in Part 4, and to
jurors in Part 5.
Description of Variables: 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.
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
Original ICPSR Release: 2003-10-30
2006-03-30 File UG3689.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads.
2006-03-30 File CQ3689.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads.
Hannaford-Agor, Paula L., Hans, Valerie P.
Nullification at work? A glimpse from the National Center for State Courts study of hung juries. Chicago-Kent Law Review.
78, (3), 1249-1277.
PDF Worldcat	Google Scholar	Export Options: RIS/EndNote 2003
Hans, Valerie P., Hannaford-Agor, Paula L., Mott, Nicole L., Munsterman, G. Thomas
The Hung Jury: The American Jury's Insights and Contemporary Understanding. Criminal Law Bulletin.
39, (1), 33-50.
Worldcat	Google Scholar	Export Options: RIS/EndNote 2002
Hannaford-Agor, Paula L.
Are Hung Juries a Problem?. VHS video, Washington, DC: National Center for State Courts, United States Department of Justice.
Hannaford-Agor, Paula L., Hans, Valerie P., Mott, Nicole L., Munsterman, G. Thomas
Are Hung Juries a Problem?. Final Report.
NCJ 201096, Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
Hans, Valerie P., Mott, Nicole L., Hannaford-Agor, Paula L., Munsterman, G. Thomas
Are Hung Juries a Problem?. Executive Summary.
NCJ 199372, Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
Hannaford, Paula A., Hans, Valerie P., Munsterman, G. Thomas
How Much Justice Hangs in the Balance? A New Look at Hung Jury Rates. Judicature.
83, (2), 59-67.