ABSTRACT
This chapter assesses whether and under what conditions characteristics of courtroom settings can substitute for sophistication and enable even unsophisticated jurors to learn what they need to know. It begins with a discussion of the literature on juror competence. The chapter demonstrates that there is much disagreement among legal scholars, social scientists and jurists as to whether jurors are capable of making informed decisions during criminal and civil trials. It suggests that even though jurors may not possess legal or scientific sophistication, there are substitutes for sophistication embedded in courtroom settings. The chapter describes the experimental design that the author use to test this proposition. It also suggests a number of hypotheses regarding subjects' ability to make informed decisions. The chapter also briefly describes the data source and statistical methods. It concludes with a discussion of the implications that the author's research has for debates about juror competence and jury reform.
