-
Abstract
We compare two jury selection procedures meant to safeguard against the inclusion of biased jurors that are perceived as causing minorities to be under-represented.
The Strike and Replace procedure presents potential jurors one-by-one to the parties, while the Struck procedure presents all potential jurors before the parties exercise vetoes.
Struck more effectively excludes extreme jurors but leads to a worse representation of minorities.
The advantage of Struck in terms of excluding extremes is sizable in a wide range of cases.
In contrast, Strike and Replace better represents minorities only if the minority and majority are heavily polarized.
Results are robust to assuming the parties statistically discriminate against jurors based on group identity.
-
External appendix
-
Replication package
-
CitationBibTeX
Moro, Andrea, and Martin Van der Linden. "Exclusion of Extreme Jurors and Minority Representation: The Effect of Jury Selection Procedures,"
The Journal of Law and Economics 67,
pp. 295-336, May
2024
@article{moro-vanderlinden-juryselection-2024,
title = "Exclusion of Extreme Jurors and Minority Representation: The Effect of Jury Selection Procedures",
author = "Moro, Andrea and Martin {Van der Linden}",
year = "2024",
month = " May",
journal = "The Journal of Law and Economics",
volume = "67",
pages = "295-336",
url = "http://andreamoro.net/assets/papers/juryselection.pdf"
}