Racial diversity and group decision‐making in a mock jury experiment

• Published date: 01 December 2022
• Author: Anne‐Marie Hakstian,Sophia R. Evett,James S. Hoffmann,Jane M. Marshall,Emory A. L. Boyland,Jerome D. Williams
• Date: 01 December 2022
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12335

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Racial diversity and group decision-making in a mock

jury experiment

Anne-Marie Hakstian

1

| Sophia R. Evett

2

|

James S. Hoffmann

3

| Jane M. Marshall

4

|

Emory A. L. Boyland

5

| Jerome D. Williams

6†

1

Management Department, Bertolon School of Business, Salem State University, Salem, Massachusetts, USA

2

Psychology Department, College of Arts and Sciences, Salem State University, Salem, Massachusetts, USA

3

Graduate Research Assistant, Psychology Department, Salem State University, Salem, Massachusetts, USA

4

Graduate Research Assistant, School of Social Work, Salem State University, Salem, Massachusetts, USA

5

Graduate Research Assistant, The Rutgers Business School-Newark and New Brunswick, Newark, New

Jersey, USA

6

Marketing Department, Center for Urban Entrepreneurship & Economic Development, Management and

Global Business Department, The Rutgers Business School-Newark and New Brunswick, Rutgers University,

Newark, New Jersey, USA

Correspondence

Anne-Marie Hakstian, Bertolon School of Business, Salem State University, 352 Lafayette Street, Salem, MA

01970, USA.

Email: ahakstian@salemstate.edu

Abstract

The primary goal of this research was to determine whether the racial composition of a

jury impacts the outcome and deliberation in a civil retail discrimination lawsuit. We

presented a retail discrimination trial video to 30 separate mock juries. Of the 30 juries,

15 juries had 2 Black jurors, while the remaining 15 had no Black jurors (i.e., only

White or White and Latinx participants). After watching the video, each mock jury was

given 1 h to deliberate as if they were jurors deciding an actual case. Contrary to previ-

ous research, juries with Black jurors were no more likely to deliberate longer or

consider more case facts. However, they were more likely to find for the plaintiff

and award higher compensation. In addition, content analysis of the deliberation racial

discourse revealed that some jurors espoused colorblind racial attitudes, minimizing the

significance of race in this case and in society in general, and accusing the plaintiff of

playing the “race card.”Other jurors encouraged understanding of the plaintiff and

espoused non-colorblind racial attitudes, recognizing the importance and damaging

role of racism in American society. Implications for civil trials, jury selection, and racial

discourse are discussed.

†

Deceased.

DOI: 10.1111/jels.12335

©2022 Cornell Law School and Wiley Periodicals LLC.

J Empir Leg Stud. 2022;19:1253–1292. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jels 1253

Discrimination on the basis of race, odious in all aspects, is especially

pernicious in the administration of justice. ( U.S. Supreme Court

Justice Anthony Kennedy in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado,2017)

LACK OF DIVERSITY IN JURY POOLS

Although the US Constitution guarantees the right to an impartial jury of one’s

peers, US juries do not mirror the multicultural nature of American society

(Higgins, 1999). In fact, courts across the country fail to empanel juries that are rep-

resentative of the diverse communities from which they are drawn (Fukurai

et al., 1991;Liptak,2007; Sweeney & Dizikes, 2013). In a recent study of jury pools

in 52 areas representing 764 counties, researchers concluded that their data “demon-

strate the ubiquity of underrepresentation in jury pools in the federal system and

document the distressing fact that underrepresentation is entrenched”(Rose

et al., 2018, p. 23). In limiting the rights of litigants whose peers are absent from the

fact-finding bodies that decide their fates, the administration of justice is threatened.

People of color are excluded from participation on juries through institutional

practices of the courts. Among them is voir dire whereby lawyers may strike indi-

viduals from a panel of prospective jurors using peremptory challenges. In con-

trast with challenges “for cause,”peremptory challenges may be exercised without

stating a reason. As a result of the 1986 Supreme Court decision in Batson

v. Kentucky, it is unconstitutional for lawyers to exercise their peremptory chal-

lenges in a way that intentionally discriminates against Blacks on the basis of

race. Despite this ruling and the Court’s recent decision in Flowers v. Mississippi

(2019), judges continue to give prosecutors the benefit of the doubt when they

offer race-neutral justifications for the exclusion of Blacks from juries.

Furthermore, until recently, it was impossible to discover, let alone address,

any racial bias that may have influenced the deliberation process and the jury’s

verdict. In 2017, the Supreme Court made a new exception to the “no-impeach-

ment”rules that generally prevent jurors from testifying about statements made

during jury deliberations (Flores, 2017). As a result of the Court’s decision, now

jurors may be questioned about outright racial bias that occurred in the jury

room even after the verdict is entered in order “to prevent a systemic loss of con-

fidence in jury verdicts”(Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado,2017, p. 125).

The present research examines the influence of jury racial composition on

the outcome of a trial and on the jury deliberations. Using Sommers’(2006)

study as a model, we extended his work in the context of a civil trial for damages

rather than a criminal case. In addition to evaluating the deliberations based on

Sommers’(2006) performance metrics, we explored the racial content of the

jurors’discussions. The results of this study add to the body of research

highlighting the importance of racial diversity on juries.

1254 RACIAL DIVERSITY IN A MOCK JURY EXPERIMENT

RACIAL ATTITUDES

Today, we understand racism as a system with both structural and ideological

components (Neville et al., 2000; Thompson & Neville, 1999). The system desig-

nates the worth of individuals based on physical attributes such as skin color

and structures opportunity accordingly (Doane, 2006). Our modern social and

political power structures have maintained the racial ordering that is grounded

in history. According to proponents of critical race theory, the overt racial hier-

archy of the past was replaced by our legal system’s current colorblindness that

not only ignores the social and institutional structures of oppression but also

blunts efforts to dismantle the racial caste system, working instead to maintain

it (Mutua, 2010).

The notion of “colorblindness”is the belief that “race should not and does

not matter”in determining a person’s outcomes (Neville et al., 2000, p. 60). By

contrast, a person expressing a non-colorblind attitude agrees that race should

not matter, yet they acknowledge that race does indeed matter. An individual

who espouses colorblindness does not necessarily harbor negative views toward

people of color. Instead, someone with a colorblind ideology is unaware that

racism exists (Neville et al., 2000) and has “attitudes that serve to deny, distort,

or minimize the existence of racism”(Oh et al., 2010, p. 166). Colorblindness

may vary across contexts depending on the degree and type of interracial expo-

sure and interaction. It is applicable to many racially and ethnically diverse

groups (Doane, 2006; Neville et al., 2000) and is viewed as a subtle form of

modern racism (Burkard & Knox, 2004).

Although many Whites believe that racism is expressed overtly and purpose-

fully, today’s racism often manifests itself covertly through the implicit biases of

well-meaning individuals. Without intending to discriminate against people

based on their race, people with implicit or unconscious racial biases hold opin-

ions and behave in ways that reflect a lack of awareness of White privilege or

the racial inequities present in American institutions. This is because their beliefs

and attitudes about people of certain racial/ethnic backgrounds exist outside

their conscious awareness and may diverge from their expressed beliefs

(Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). Therefore, people of color may experience differ-

ential treatment in all aspects of life including the courtroom.

RACIAL ATTITUDES IN THE RETAIL STORE

ENVIRONMENT

When Black customers shop in retail stores, they encounter store employees

with conscious and unconscious stereotypes and attitudes about them. As a

result, Black shoppers are simultaneously ignored by sales staff and watched

more closely by store security personnel (Jordan et al., 2009; Pittman, 2020).

RACIAL DIVERSITY IN A MOCK JURY EXPERIMENT 1255