Rushi Patel

Independent Research

Period:2

February, 12, 2018

Annotated Bib:

The research in this article provides insight on some of the things jurors may do that can

influence a verdict and explains how to reduce the bias within the juror. The research discusses

how the irrationality of human thought can diminish the accuracy of evidence gathering and

verdicts. Furthermore, the author believes the irrationality of human thought occurs in the

courtroom due to premature judgments made by lawyers and jurors. These premature judgments

only make them believe what they want to believe and if there is a slightest bit of evidence that

does not connect back to their judgment they ignore it. The way it can be reduced is if

Investigators could come up with alternative hypotheses and say why those are wrong.

Additionally, provide counter theories where they can say the pros and cons of each one of them.

Furthermore, jurors have a hard time ignoring inadmissible evidence. Inadmissible evidence is

evidence that the court says to the jury not to take in consideration but does anyway. Another

way the author believes we can reduce juror bias is by nudging. Nudging urges jurors to think

one way in a case. However this can lead to problems because they won’t take into consideration

any other evidence. But the author suggests that they offer alternative hypotheses.

This journal, written by a professor at the University of Columbia for Psychology and the

other is the head of the Department of Psychology, summarizes how the human thought can play

into the verdict of the trial. Although both authors are experts in psychology, the psychological
research the authors conducted can help to improve legal policy, procedure and practice.Due to

both authors conducting tremendous amounts of research by looking at court cases prior to

writing this paper, makes the information more high level and accurate. Their paper informs

lawmakers and lawyers of the impacts of how jurors can make premature thoughts about a case

before looking for interpreting through all the evidence. The authors exhibit deep and detailed

coverage because she refers to multiple court cases from different areas around the United States,

and builds on the inner thoughts of a person’s mind when being part of the jury. The journal is

objective because it is not biased and it is appropriate for lawmakers or researches studying juror

bias. It is not biased because it acknowledges that these premature judgements can happen in

various situations, but not all the time. This academic journal also is corroborated by Mike

Redmayne who pointed out that jurors do not seemed to process the information that may help

the defendant. This information pointed out by Redmayne, proves that the academic journal is

both credible and reliable. Additionally, this academic journal is not outdated, having it been

published in 2013, following the five year rule.

Citation: ​Greene, E., & Bornstein, B. H. (2013, Fall). Nudging the justice system toward better

decisions. ​Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology​, ​103​(4), 1155+. Retrieved from

http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A353320218/GPS?u=glen20233&sid=GPS&xid=1915e0be