Talk:Scientific jury selection

Pop culture section
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)

The pop culture section may or may not be relevant, but starting it with "The two major fictional representations to date..." is not a good idea. I am sure that there are many more, and I am also quite certain that the movie "The Devil's Advocate" would be at least as 'major' as some tv-show episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.80.206 (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Good article nomination October / November 2007
This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. This is how the article, reviewed, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1) It is well written:
 * Generally speaking yes, but not quite, see notes below.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * Generall speaking yes, a couple items need verification (have been tagged in the article)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * Yes
 * 1) It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
 * For the most part, see notes below
 * 1) It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war.
 * Yes, few recent edits, and no edit wars looking at the history and talk page
 * 1) It is illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images.
 * Probably the best that it can be, but minor placement adjustment is needed (see below). I would suggest trying to find a picture of a jury though (I will not fail on this point alone)

Details

 * Regarding: Words to avoid/Avoid weasel words/WP:NPOV (section followed by individual examples needing to be addressed)
 * Lead: “paint a dark picture”
 * History and use: “but not always to good effect”; “More recently”;
 * Methods: “maverick methods”
 * Criticism and suggested reforms: “popular” and “outlandish”
 * Use of these words tends to push the reader towards certain conclusions about the topic, give the facts and try to avoid commentary, let the facts speak for themselves.


 * With the images in the History and use section: they should not be opposite each other


 * Formatting/style issues: (section listed, then individual entries)
 * History and use:
 * preemptory challenge is wikilinked twice see, WP:MOS-L
 * “subscribers would not.” – complete the sentence
 * “voir dire” – explain the term
 * “LA” spell out the first time it is used
 * Methods:
 * “Kassin and Wrightsman” provide context for the reader of who they are
 * Criticism and suggested reforms:
 * “Abramson” provide context for the reader of who they are
 * “peremptories” need to define prior to using: preemptory challenges (peremptories)

A more general concern is that this is a well written article, but it reads like something from a law journal. Being a law student I have no problem understanding it and knowing the terms, but this needs to be dumbed down a bit for the average reader. Provide context, explain terms as though a 10th grader were reading this and trying to understand the concept. This should take a little work here and there, but doesn’t require a major re-write. I will place this on hold for at least 7 days. Please let me know if you have any questions about the notes above. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to begin by thanking you, Aboutmovies, for this thorough and helpful review. It was more than I expected and though I was initially annoyed, I now think the changes help the article. As to some specifics:
 * I borrowed a voir dire image from the jury selection article to use here. I think it's even more appropriate than an image of a jury I expect you would agree, but I can still probably get a jury image if you prefer. This fair-use image was previously in the article, but in line with Wikipedia's general preference for freer images, I think we should keep it out at this point, even though the computer screens illustrate the high-tech angle well.
 * Regarding the last words of the introduction, "paint a dark picture," I think this is an accurate description of the more negative than reality depictions of jury consultants. It's more rhetorically florid than some Wikipedia prose, but I don't see how that detracts from its neutrality. If you disagree, please elaborate.
 * Regarding the cite tag in the methods section, while those sentences are uncited, it appears they only summarize other information in that section. If you see information there that is not cited elsewhere, please let me know.
 * Finally, I will "dumb down" and explain jargon next week (though it may require a peer-review of someone not as familiar with the subject as a law student). It may be necessary to keep the article on hold longer than seven days. Thank you.--chaser - t 12:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll check back in on Friday at the earliest, so you will have at least a few extra days. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you wouldn't mind giving me until Monday, I would greatly appreciate it. Alternatively, I'll try to come into the internet cafe tomorrow morning. Cheers!--chaser (away) - talk 18:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's make it Tuesday. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I think it's ready. I added some explanations and reworded some things to make it easier for a lay audience to understand. Hopefully I got to everything, but if there's something else you'd like me to work on, let me know. As to the "paint a dark picture", I added an alternative phrasing for your review. I prefer "paint a dark picture", but don't want to see the GA review hang on such a minor point. As to the cite tag in the methods section, I think Diamond covers all the material, but I can't be sure without seeing the article, and I can't do that from Italy. I have to stand by what I said before about the tag - that the first paragraph is a summary and a tag is not strictly necessary. Cheers.--chaser (away) - talk 17:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

GA pass

 * 1) Well written?: yes
 * 2) Factually accurate?: yes
 * 3) Broad in coverage?: yes
 * 4) Neutral point of view?: enough
 * 5) Article stability? yes
 * 6) 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)

comments from a practitioner
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)writesofpassage --Writesofpassage (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Other relevant articles
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)