The power of meaningful numbers: Attorney guidance and jury deliberation improve the reliability and gist validity of damage awards.

OBJECTIVE: A mock jury experiment tested the effects of attorney guidance and jury deliberation to mitigate the challenges that civil juries face in assessing damages. HYPOTHESES: We hypothesized that two types of attorney guidance (per diem, per diem + lump sum), theoretically based in the Hans-Reyna model of jury decision making, would improve jury decision making compared with no guidance against five key benchmarks: injury assessment, validity, reliability, verbatim-gist coherence, and metacognitive experience. We expected that deliberation would increase reliability of, confidence in, and polarization of awards compared with predeliberation. METHOD: Community members (N = 317; 61% women; 86.1% White; Mage = 48.68 years) deliberated in 54 mock juries. Participants watched a videotaped trial involving an automobile accident in which two plaintiffs sustained concussions (one mild and one severe). The plaintiffs' attorney's closing arguments varied attorney guidance (no guidance, per diem, per diem + lump sum). Mock jurors provided individual judgments before deliberating as a jury and reaching group verdicts and awards. RESULTS: Juries performed well against benchmarks. Providing gist-based guidance with a meaningful award recommendation increased the validity of jurors' individual damage awards (η²p jurors = .03) and the reliability of jury damage awards (η²p jurors = .04; η²p jurors = .20); gist-based guidance without an award recommendation did not improve performance against benchmarks and increased perceptions of decision-making difficulty (η²p = .13). Deliberation increased reliability of (η²p = .17), confidence in (η²p = .02), and polarization of (d = 2.14) awards compared with predeliberation. CONCLUSION: Juries performed well against objective benchmarks of performance (injury assessment, validity, reliability, and verbatim-gist coherence), and deliberation improved performance compared with predeliberation decisions. Jury decisions were further influenced by attorney closing arguments (the guidance manipulation), especially when the attorney requests a lump sum, which can serve as a powerful influence on jury awards, mainly by setting an upper limit. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Mock juror sampling issues in jury simulation research: A meta-analysis.

The advantages and disadvantages of jury simulation research have often been debated in the literature. Critics chiefly argue that jury simulations lack verisimilitude, particularly through their use of student mock jurors, and that this limits the generalizabilty of the findings. In the present article, the question of sample differences (student v. nonstudent) in jury research was meta-analyzed for 6 dependent variables: 3 criminal (guilty verdicts, culpability, and sentencing) and 3 civil (liability verdicts, continuous liability, and damages). In total, 53 studies (N = 17,716) were included in the analysis (40 criminal and 13 civil). The results revealed that guilty verdicts, culpability ratings, and damage awards did not vary with sample. Furthermore, the variables that revealed significant or marginally significant differences, sentencing and liability judgments, had small or contradictory effect sizes (e.g., effects on dichotomous and continuous liability judgments were in opposite directions). In addition, with the exception of trial presentation medium, moderator effects were small and inconsistent. These results may help to alleviate concerns regarding the use of student samples in jury simulation research. (PsycINFO Database Record

Problem signs in law school: Fostering attorney well-being early in professional training.

Attorneys suffer from high rates of stress, alcoholism, and mental health problems that are costly for the legal system and impair their abilities to serve their clients. There is some indication that these problems begin in law school. The present study assessed a cohort of law students at an American law school for their reported levels of stress, depression, anxiety, substance use, and overall adjustment/coping. Findings indicate that law students suffer from high levels of stress, anxiety, depression, and alcohol use, and that these problem behaviors fluctuate throughout the course of law school. We discuss the implications for law student/lawyer well-being and legal education.