The effect of peremptory challenge reform on minority representation in juries and on trial outcomes
(coming soon)- AbstractIn jury trials in the U.S., the defense and the prosecution can exercise a limited number of peremptory challenges to exclude jurors they deem unfit to be objective. This institution is sometimes perceived to cause minorities to be under-represented in juries. I use data from trials against Black defendants in Mississippi to estimate a model of jury selection where the defense and prosecution strategically choose which jurors to exclude from the jury. I match moments of trial outcomes and jurors’ challenges by the defense and prosecution. Using the parameter estimates, I assess counterfactuals to compare various aspects of the selection procedures. I compare the The Strike and Replace procedure, which presents potential jurors one-by-one to the parties, with the Struck procedure, presenting all potential jurors before the parties exercise vetoes. Re- sults show that Struck more effectively excludes extremely biased jurors but leads to a worse representation of minorities and higher conviction rates of Black defendants. In all procedures, granting more challenges to the parties favors the prosecution and significantly increases conviction rates of Black defendants.