Comparing Judicial, Jury, and Litigant Perceptions of the Trial Process

• In Event: Poster Session I

Abstract

Classic studies on judge-juror agreement have converged on the finding that judges and jurors agree on the outcomes in most cases (71-75%; Eisenberg et al., 2005; Kalven & Zeisel, 1966). The current study extends these findings by comparing trial process evaluations of judges, jurors, and litigants in actual civil trials. Using data originally collected by Hans, Hannaford-Agor, & Munsterman (1999), the results suggest that judges and juries largely overlapped in their perceptions of trial process measures (e.g., case complexity). However, judicial and jury perceptions often differed from litigants’ perceptions. We also explored how different perspectives of the trial process predicted litigants’ satisfaction with the outcome. Litigant, but not judicial or jury perceptions of the trial process, predicted litigant outcome satisfaction. These results support past research concerning judge-juror agreement (Eisenberg et al., 2005), but suggest there is less agreement between objective (i.e., judges and jurors) and subjective (i.e., litigants) perspectives of the trial process. Implications will be discussed.

Authors

• Aaron Duron, Texas State University

• Angela Jones, Texas State University

• Shayne E. Jones, Texas State University