Date of Award
Spring 5-2025
Document Type
Dissertation
Degree Name
Doctor of Philosophy
Department
Communication
First Advisor
Dr. Michelle Miller-Day
Second Advisor
Dr. Keith Weber
Third Advisor
Dr. Vikki Katz
Fourth Advisor
Dr. Lemuel Day
Abstract
Due to skepticism and fear surrounding jury trials, 99% of cases in the U.S. are settled and less than 1% make it to a jury trial (AO Reports, 2023). To address the uncertainty surrounding jury trials, which are nearing extinction, lawyers have relied on methods, like trial simulations to predict jury verdicts (Bornstein & Kleynhans, 2018; Wiener & Bornstein, 2011). However, in legal practice there has been significant unease about the ability of jury research to generalize findings to actual trial settings (Ross, 2023, 2024). What is needed is a description of a single legal research method that when practiced in courtroom trial settings, (1) can support lawyers by providing insights to how a jury is making verdict decision, and (2) predict actual juries’ verdicts. Currently, because of costs, time, and accessibility, there is no systematic over time analysis that evaluates the predictive efficacy of a single research method and compares surrogate jurors’ verdict findings to those of actual juries. The purpose of this study was to introduce a specific legal research method, The Parallel Jury, describe its processes and procedures, examine its usefulness in supporting lawyers during trial, and evaluate its effectiveness in predicting the verdicts of real juries. This study was a longitudinal content analysis that compared parallel and actual jury verdict findings in 82 civil litigation trials, in 40 states across the nation. The results revealed the parallel juries’
liability findings were predictive in 88% of the cases. An Odds Ratio test confirmed the parallel juries’ liability verdicts were significant and highly associated with the actual juries (OR = 53.833). In addition, for damage awards parallel juries were predictive (within a 25% range) in 70% of the trial cases. Similarly, an Odds Ratio test confirmed the parallel juries’ damage awards were significant and highly associated with the actual juries’ damage awards (OR = 9.714). If the odds ratios are viewed as probabilities, the probability of an accurate prediction for either liability or damage award outcomes for any one case over baseline increases by over .90 with the use of parallel juries. This study makes a valuable contribution by being the first to systematically describe the process and procedures of a specific legal research method, examine its usefulness in supporting lawyers during trial, and evaluate its effectiveness in predicting jury verdicts in live trials with real jurors. Additionally, this study offers lawyers a practical framework for understanding jury decision-making, removing layers of uncertainty associated with a jury trial, and strengthening practitioners’ ability to make strategic litigation decisions with increased clarity and confidence.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.
Recommended Citation
Anthony, K. C. (2025). The parallel jury: Describing its processes and procedures and evaluating its effectiveness in predicting jury verdicts [Doctoral dissertation, Chapman University]. Chapman University Digital Commons. https://doi.org/10.36837/chapman.000639