About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

7 IJPS 1 (2011)
In Their Own Words: Capital Jurors' Reactions to Mitigation Strategies

handle is hein.journals/punisen7 and id is 5 raw text is: IJPS (2011) Vol 7 No 1

IN THEIR OWN WORDS: CAPITAL JURORS' REACTIONS TO
MITIGATION STRATEGIES
Adam Trahan
University of North Texas
Department of Criminal Justice
Abstract:    Despite decades of grappling by the Supreme Court over how to ensure capital
defendants are afforded their Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury,
research has shown that capital jurors are predisposed to reject mitigation and
sentence defendants to death. The study presented here was designed to ascertain
ways in which defense attorneys can increase jurors' receptivity to mitigating
evidence and arguments.  Transcripts of interviews conducted by the Capital
Jury Project were analyzed using thematic analysis methods to identif and
describe effective mitigation strategies. A total of 76 jurors discussed their
reactions to five general mitigation themes.  The results show that mitigation
cases wherein multiple strategies are combined into one coherent narrative were
the most successful. Mitigation that focused on the defendants' background was
also relatively effective. The specific attributes of these mitigation strategies that
resonate with jurors are presented. Techniques defense attorneys can employ in
each strategy to increase jurors' receptivity are also discussed.
Interview
The Supreme Court has grappled for decades over how to ensure that defendants charged
with capital crimes are afforded their Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. One of the
most notorious policies that has emerged from this struggle is commonly referred to as death
qualification. Death qualification is a controversial procedure whereby prospective jurors are
vetted during voir dire as to their ability to give meaningful consideration to all legal penalties in
making their sentencing decision. Jurors who indicate that they would automatically vote for or
against a death sentence upon conviction are theoretically excluded from jury service. Those
whose responses suggest they would wait to hear the evidence of mitigating and aggravating
circumstances, and base their sentencing decision on these factors alone, are eligible to serve on
capital juries (Wainwright v. Witt, 1985; Morgan v. Illinois, 1992).
An extensive body of research literature has developed on whether death qualification in
fact yields capital jurors who are able and willing to give meaningful consideration to mitigating
factors and weigh the merits of a life sentence. The findings of this research suggest it does not.
Studies have shown that capital jurors are generally unreceptive to mitigation and predisposed to
vote in favor of death (Luginbuhl & Middendorf, 1988; Garvey, 1998; Blume, Johnson, &
Threlkheld, 2001; Sandys & McClelland, 2003; Haney, 2005; Butler & Wasserman, 2006; Butler

1

Trahan

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most