What is relative plausibility?

Allen and Pardo’s explanation of Relative Plausibility as a theory of evidence and proof in litigation is ambiguous and underspecified. Their account suggests at least three different interpretations of what they mean. They might be advocating “anti-halfism,” which tracks the “conventional account” but merely rejects >0.5 as the proper standard of proof. Or they might be advocating “probabilistic holism,” in which trial decision-makers apply probability to whole claims but not elements – in which case it remains to be explained how such an approach is internally coherent. Or they might be endorsing “total anti-probabilism,” in which “plausibility” obeys rules and axioms different from those of probability – rules and axioms that Allen and Pardo have yet to identify. To date, Allen and Pardo have side-stepped criticisms by shifting from one interpretation to another, strategically. Aside from presenting a theory too formless to determine how well it fits actual jury behavior, Allen and Pardo have not presented any robust empirical observations about how juries actually decide cases (despite their claims to do so). Before we can really assess whether Relative Plausibility is a new paradigm for understanding the structure of evidence and proof in litigation, Allen and Pardo must tell us much more about what it actually is.

How Punishment Severity Affects Jury Verdicts: Evidence from Two Natural Experiments

This paper studies the effect of punishment severity on jury decision making using archival data from London’s Old Bailey Criminal Court from 1772 to 1871. We exploit two natural experiments in English history, resulting in sharp decreases in punishment severity: the offense-specific abolition of capital punishment and the temporary halt of penal transportation during the American Revolution. Using difference-in-differences to study the former and a pre-post design for the latter, we find a large, significant, and permanent impact on jury behavior: juries are more likely to convict overall and across crime categories. Moreover, the effect size differs with defendants’ gender. (JEL K41, K42, N43)

Coping with Modern Challenges and Anticipating the Future of Criminal Jury Trials

This chapter analyzes how researchers and courts can cope with modern challenges for 21st-century criminal jury trials and discusses what should be expected from criminal juries and future jury research. The chapter asks how a receptive legal system interested in making changes to maximize the fairness of criminal jury trials might respond. It reviews the important themes and massive empirical literature that this remarkable collection presents in vivid and thoughtful detail, highlighting the persistent issues of race and ethnicity, as well as new challenges and opportunities that have accompanied the dramatic advances in technology. The chapter raises questions about the application of empirical findings on jury behavior in the context of the legal system and considers the omissions and incomplete understandings that future research needs to address in order to provide a full picture of this important human institution.

Twelve Good Men and True? The Character of Early Fourteenth-Century Juries

Over the last decade special attention has been accorded to the development of the trial jury. Historians have examined, within the context of the administration of justice and across a broad chronological span, the shifting character of English juries. Thomas Green himself has contributed much to our understanding of medieval jury behavior by synthesizing his own and existing research to form a useful working hypothesis and by highlighting in particular the practice of jury nullification. Yet there are still areas, particularly in the medieval period, that lack adequate definition and would benefit from the close attention afforded by more specific studies ranging over a limited time frame.