Study may show racial makeup of jury affects outcome

April 27, 2012
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Researchers led by Duke University examined the jury pools of two Florida counties over a 10-year period and found that all-white juries convicted black defendants nearly 16 percent more often than white defendants.

When there was at least one black member of the jury, that gap was nearly eliminated.

The researches used the two Florida counties because those counties had detailed statistical information about jury compositions available. They looked at data from 2000 to 2010 from noncapital felony criminal cases and studied the effects of age, race and gender of jury pools on conviction rates. Their article focuses on the racial aspect of juries.

Where there were no black jurors, black defendants were convicted 81 percent of the time; white defendants were convicted 66 percent of the time.

When there was at least one black juror, conviction rates for black defendants were 71 percent and 73 percent for white defendants. When blacks were in the jury pool, they were slightly more likely to be seated on a jury than whites. About 40 percent of the jury pools examined had no black members.

“The crossing pattern exhibited by our main findings thus leads to our final conclusion: that jurors of at least one race (and possibly both) either interpret evidence differently depending on the race of the defendant or use a standard of evidence that varies with the race of the defendant. Either possibility implies that the interaction of defendant and jury race fundamentally alters the mapping of evidence to conviction rates and, thus, that the impact of the racial composition of the jury pool (and seated jury) is a factor that merits much more attention and analysis to ensure the fairness of the criminal justice system,” the article states.

The study was published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics and conducted in part by staff in Duke’s economics department and researchers from Carnegie Mellon University and Queen Mary, University of London.

You can view the study online.
 

ADVERTISEMENT
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT