The Perceived Fairness of the Psychologist Trial Consultant: An Empirical Investigation
![handle is hein.journals/lpsyr20 and id is 143 raw text is: THE PERCEIVED FAIRNESS OF THE
PSYCHOLOGIST TRIAL CONSULTANT:
AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
Dennis P. Stolle*
Jennifer K Robbennolt
Richard L. Wiener'
I. INTRODUCTION
From its inception in the 1972 Harrisburg Seven trial' to
the recent furor surrounding jury selection in the O.J. Simpson
trial,' the use of social scientists as consultants in trial prepara-
tion and jury selection has been a point of controversy in both
the legal and social scientific communities.8 The controversy has
mainly revolved around two issues. The first is whether the
procedures used by trial consultants are effective.4 The second
*. National Institute of Mental Health Fellow; Graduate student in the Law &
Psychology Joint Degree (J.DJPh.D.) Program at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
. Judicial Clerk to the Honorable John M. Gerrard of the Nebraska Supreme
Court; J.D., University of Nebraska-Lincoln; Ph.D. candidate in the Law and Psy-
chology Program at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
***. Professor of Psychology and Public Policy,, St. Louis University; Visiting
Professor, Missouri Institute of Mental Health; Editor, LAW & HUMAN BEHAVIOR.
1. The Harrisburg Seven trial is often cited as one of the first cases to use
scientific jury selection. E.g., JEFFERY T. FREDERICK, THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE
AMERICAN JuRY 51 (1987); SAuL M. KASSiN & LAWRENCE S. WRIGHTsMAN, THE
AMERICAN JURY ON TRIAL 6-7 (1988); Gary Moran et al., Attitudes Toward Tort Re-
form, Scientific Jury Selection, and Juror Bias: Verdict Inclination in Criminal and
Civil Trials, 18 LAW & PSYCHOL. REV. 309 (1994); John Charles S. Pierce, Selecting
the Perfect Jury: Use of Jury Consultants in Voir Dire, 14 LAW & PSYCHOL. REV.
167, 173 (1990); Michael Saks, The Limits of Scientific Jury Selection: Ethical and
Empirical, 17 JURIMETRICS J. 3 (1976); Jeremy W. Barber, Note: The Jury is Still
Out: The Role of Jury Science in the Modern American Courtroom, 31 AM. CRIM. L.
REV. 1225, 1232 (1994). See United States v. Ahmad, 347 F. Supp. 912 (M.D. Pa.
1972).
2. See, e.g., Jefferey Abramson, Stacking O.J. Jury Won't Work, USA TODAY,
Sept. 27, 1994, at 1A; Maura Dolan, Role of Jury Consultants Controversial and
Extensive, L.A. TIMES, Sept. 26, 1994, at 1A20/20: Choosing the Simpson Jury (ABC
television broadcast, July 22, 1994) [hereinafter 20/20]; Nightline (ABC television
broadcast, September 27, 1994) [hereinafter Nightline]; Money Tonight: Use of Trial
Consultants in -Court Cases Comes at a High Price (CNBC television broadcast, Oct.
4, 1994) [hereinafter Money Tonight].
3. For an early account of the controversy, see Saks, supra note 1. For more
recent accounts of nearly identical yet still unresolved issues see Barber, supra note
1; Brian L. Cutler, Introduction: The Status of Scientific Jury Selection in Psychology
and Law, 3 FORENsIC REP. 227 (1990).
4. E.g., Saks, supra note 1, at 13. Roberta W. Shell, Scientific Jury Selection:](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/lpsyr20&div=9&collection=journals&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
The Perceived Fairness of the Psychologist Trial Consultant: An Empirical Investigation
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most