How Deviants Deliberate: A Qualitative Analysis of Felon Jurors’ Contributions to Mock Juries

• In Event: Courtroom Research

Abstract

Forty-nine states, the District of Columbia, and the federal court system statutorily restrict convicted felons’ eligibility for jury service. Justifying these restrictions, lawmakers and courts allege that convicted felons lack the requisite character to adjudicate a litigated matter and harbor an inherent bias that would undermine the impartiality of the jury process. Taken together, these justifications suggest that convicted felons, if allowed to serve, would diminish the overall quality of deliberations. This exploratory mock jury experiment is the first to evaluate mixed juries that include both non-felon jurors and felon jurors. Qualitative analysis of deliberation transcripts reveals that on theoretically derived measures of deliberation quality, felon jurors do not detract from, and may enhance the deliberative process. Felon jurors conscientiously attempted to adhere to jury instructions, thoroughly examined evidence, impartially pieced evidence together into a coherent narrative, participated meaningfully often facilitating full participation by fellow jurors, and remained open to informational influence throughout the process. Contrary to the proffered justifications for felon juror exclusion statutes, felon jurors did not exhibit a tendency to flout legal instructions or to unduly favor the criminal defendant. These results call into question the necessity and supposed purpose for felon juror exclusion.

Author

• James M. Binnall, California State University, Long Beach