RAPID: The Impact of Bans on Peremptory Challenges On Voir Dire, Jury Composition, and Case Outcomes

尽管几十年来一直在努力减少美国法律体系中的不平等，但这种现象依然存在。某些人口群体在监狱和被误判者中的比例过高，部分原因是他们在陪审团中的比例一直偏低。陪审团成员多样性的增加提高了审议的质量，减少了陪审团裁决中的偏见，但检察官使用强制质疑是造成陪审团差异的主要机制。检察官从某些群体中挑选陪审员的比率更高，并在受到质疑时成功地提供中立的理由。亚利桑那州即将通过禁止强制性挑战迈出真正变革的一步，这是一项开创性的改革，将于2022年1月1日生效。该禁令的既定目标是打击陪审团选择中的偏见；假设这将增加陪审团的多样性，减少判决中的偏见。该项目在现实环境中推进多样性、群体决策和消除偏见的基础科学。它测试了陪审团选择过程的结构性变化是否会改变陪审团选择决定的方式，以及陪审团多样性和偏见的下游后果。它测试了在选择陪审团时是否存在种族歧视，因为律师将他们为排除某些群体的陪审员提供令人信服的中立理由的倾向从强制性挑战转变为有理由的挑战。该项目通过测试旨在在法律体系中实现这一目标的大规模开创性干预措施的影响，进一步推动了国家科学基金会打击偏见、促进公平、多样性和包容性的价值观。该项目还为今后的研究建立了重要的数据库，并在研究的每一个阶段都让代表性不足的群体的许多成员担任研究助理。这一规则的变化提供了一个重要而短暂的机会，可以收集在这一变化之前和之后关于口头陈述的做法、陪审团组成和案件结果的数据。这个跨学科、多方法的项目旨在实现以下研究目标：(1)检验强制性质疑禁令实施后，高等法院陪审团的多样性和代表性是否显著增强；(2)检验强制性质疑禁令实施后，某些群体被告案件的定罪率或责任率是否显著降低；(3)检验强制性质疑禁令实施后，某些群体因困难/事由被免罪的比例是否显著增加，从而减轻禁令的整体影响。(4)测试在强制质疑禁令颁布后，法庭对原因挑战的辩论和裁决方式是否会发生变化，以减轻禁令的整体影响；(5)与法官和律师进行访谈，了解他们如何改变陪审团选择策略，以限制禁令对陪审团整体构成的影响。该奖项反映了美国国家科学基金会的法定使命，并通过使用基金会的知识价值和更广泛的影响审查标准进行评估，被认为值得支持。

Despite decades of effort aimed at reducing disparities in the American legal system, they persist. Certain demographic groups are overrepresented in prisons and among those falsely convicted, due, in part, to their continually being underrepresented on juries. Increased diversity on juries improves the quality of deliberation and reduces bias in jury decisions—but prosecutors’ use of peremptory challenges is a primary mechanism for creating disparities on juries. Prosecutors strike jurors from some groups at higher rates and successfully provide neutral reasons when challenged. Arizona is about to take a truly transformative step by banning peremptory challenges, a ground-breaking reform taking effect on January 1st, 2022. The stated goal of the ban is to combat bias in jury selection; the assumption being that this will increase jury diversity and reduce bias in verdicts. This project advances basic science on diversity, group decision-making, and combating bias in a real-world setting. It tests whether a structural change to the jury selection process alters how jury selection decisions are made and the downstream consequences for diversity and bias on juries. It tests whether racial discrimination in jury selection persists because attorneys shift their tendency to offer compelling neutral justifications for excluding jurors of some groups from peremptory challenges to challenges for cause. This project furthers NSF values of combating bias and promoting equity, diversity, and inclusion by testing the impact of a large-scale ground-breaking intervention designed to do just that in the legal system. This project also creates important databases for future research and involve many members of underrepresented groups as research assistants in every stage of the research. This rule change presents an important and ephemeral opportunity to collect data on voir dire practices, composition of juries, and case outcomes before and after this change. This transdisciplinary, multi-method project is designed to achieve the following research aims: (1) test whether Superior Court juries are significantly more diverse and representative after the peremptory challenge ban, (2) test whether conviction or liability rates in cases with defendants of some groups will significantly decrease after the peremptory challenge ban, (3) test whether the percentage of persons of some groups excused for hardship/cause will significantly increase after the peremptory challenge ban is enacted, thereby mitigating the overall impact of the ban, (4) test whether the way challenges for cause are argued and decided in court changes after the peremptory challenge ban is enacted in ways that mitigate the overall impact of the ban, and (5) conduct interviews with judges and attorneys regarding how they might alter their jury selection strategies in ways that limit the impact of the ban on overall jury composition.This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.