Talk:Scientific jury selection

message: I'm not sure the pop culture section adds anything to the article. Any thoughts from someone who's not a partisan on either side of that particular wiki-conflict?--chaser - t 03:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pop culture section

message: # Well written?: yes
# Factually accurate?: yes
# Broad in coverage?: yes
# Neutral point of view?: enough
# Article stability? yes
# Images?: yes
After making a few minor changes I have passed the article. Great job with the improvements and with the article in general.
*To get through FA, you will need to add a citation for the one item still tagged for a reference (one will not cause it to fail GA), and probably a few more here and there. Notice where I added a ref from a bit lower in the article, this was a statement that could be challenged, and though referenced later the reader cannot know this without checking. And more importantly, since the article can evolve, more info may eventually be added in between information that is covered in one citation at the end of a paragraph.
*I would also suggest less POV type language here and there. I changed some (such as paints a dark picture), for that reason, but other comments here and there tend to editorialize and introduce the POV that jury selection is a bad thing. I'm not saying SJS is a good thing, but at points in the article it appears more biased against SJS use.
*Continue explaining terms here and there to provide the context needed for the average reader.
Again, good job with the article. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA pass

message: Overall, this article offers some good information.
However, as a practicing trial and jury consultant and a graduate-trained social scientist, I believe that some of the statements in this article are facutally inaccurate. First, I would challenge the author to find a citation that states the theory of scientific jury selection is that jury demographics predict jury attitudes which predict verdicts. Every practitioner whom I know or who have read  -- and I work in a firm with more than 10 consultants and I have worked with, read, and talked over 40 more practicing jury consultants and read many more academic researchers in jury research -- says clearly that demographics are poor predictors of jury orientation and discourages attorneys from relying upon demographic indicators. This is no surprise. The underlying academic research that supports jury research says the same thing. In most cases, demographics WILL NOT predict either attitudes or verdict orientation. Our research is directed to examine attitudes and experiences and how they might relate to jurors' verdict orientations. The realities of what judges will allow in voir dire, however, does often mean that the only information attorneys receive in the process is demographic information, leaving them with a dilemma of how to intelligently exercise strikes based on poor information. Therefore, I counsel my clients about how to best evaluate jurors under such circumstances, as do other practitioners I work with and know. 
When only demographic information is available, attorneys are forced to make decisions based on stereotypes. The more the courts restrict the information available to attorneys in voir dire, the more they put attorneys in an impossible position, where to do their job, they almost must break the law (e.g., to strike jurors based on their membership in cognizable groups).
Related to this, I would also contest the description of SJS as directed towards "choos[ing] favorable juries... This strikes me as a biased and judgemental description. It is about applying the insights and methods of social science to jury selection. Period. No one gets to choose a jury. Each side gets to de-select a small number of jurors. Usually, when a jury consultant is brought in, it is because the client has serious negatives and is worried about bias. A great deal of what we do to help has to do with crafting useful questions and helping attorneys develop the skills to elicit useful information from jurors so that more informed decisions can be made and jurors with bias can be identified. Our work is usually about creating a level playing field, not about creating advantage. Does it sometimes happen that one side does a better job than the other in jury selection? Sure. That's not what I promise and I don't believe any other respectable practitioner does either. So I also contest the suggestion that:
"...advocates and practitioners of scientific jury selection claim the practice is overwhelmingly effective at choosing juries that will render the desired verdict..."
My colleagues don't say this. I am a practitioner and I don't say this. I tell my clients that the most important part of their case is the evidence and how they present it. I also tell them that you are not likely to win a case in jury selection, but you surely can lose one, if you leave biased jurors on your jury.  I would like to see some specific, recent quotes or citations that back up this statement and have it properly modified, or have it re-written entirely.
Thanks!
Writesofpassage (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: comments from a practitioner

message: *http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/onulr17&div=23&id=&page=
Tisane (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles that it would be good for someone with legal database access to look up 

message: This topic is beyond my area of understanding, but the following is a source in which psychologists working on the Angela Davis case (early 1970s) describe what they did. Location (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Other relevant articles