Skip to main content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to content

Evaluation of Hung Juries in Bronx County, New York, Los Angeles County, California, Maricopa County, Arizona, and Washington, DC, 2000-2001

Metadata Updated: November 28, 2023

This study was undertaken for the purpose of providing an empirical picture of hung juries. Researchers were able to secure the cooperation of four courts: (1) Bronx County Supreme Court in New York, (2) Los Angeles County Superior Court in California, (3) Maricopa County Superior Court in Arizona, and (4) District of Columbia Superior Court in Washington, DC. The four sites were responsible for distributing and collecting questionnaire packets to all courtrooms hearing non-capital felony jury cases. Each packet contained a case data form requesting information about case characteristics (Part 1) and outcomes (Part 2), as well as survey questionnaires for the judges (Part 3), attorneys (Part 4), and jurors (Part 5). The case data form requested type of charge, sentence range, jury's decision, demographic information about the defendant(s) and the victim(s), voir dire (jury selection process), trial evidence and procedures, and jury deliberations. The judge questionnaire probed for evaluation of the evidence, case complexity, attorney skill, likelihood that the jury would hang, reaction to the verdict, opinions regarding the hung jury rate in the jurisdiction, and experience on the bench. The attorney questionnaire requested information assessing the voir dire, case complexity, attorney skill, evaluation of the evidence, reaction to the verdict, opinions regarding the hung jury rate in the jurisdiction, and experience in legal practice. If the jury hung, attorneys also provided their views about why the jury was unable to reach a verdict. Finally, the juror questionnaire requested responses regarding case complexity, attorney skill, evaluation of the evidence, formation of opinions, dynamics of the deliberations including the first and final votes, juror participation, conflict, reaction to the verdict, opinions about applicable law, assessment of criminal justice in the community, and demographic information.

Access & Use Information

Public: This dataset is intended for public access and use. License: us-pd

Downloads & Resources

Dates

Metadata Created Date August 18, 2021
Metadata Updated Date November 28, 2023

Metadata Source

Harvested from DOJ JSON

Additional Metadata

Resource Type Dataset
Metadata Created Date August 18, 2021
Metadata Updated Date November 28, 2023
Publisher National Institute of Justice
Maintainer
Identifier 2867
Data First Published 2003-10-30T00:00:00
Language eng
Data Last Modified 2006-03-30T00:00:00
Public Access Level public
Bureau Code 011:21
Metadata Context https://project-open-data.cio.gov/v1.1/schema/catalog.jsonld
Metadata Catalog ID https://www.justice.gov/data.json
Schema Version https://project-open-data.cio.gov/v1.1/schema
Catalog Describedby https://project-open-data.cio.gov/v1.1/schema/catalog.json
Harvest Object Id c4e3103d-42fb-497c-94ca-69af00ef4d72
Harvest Source Id 3290e90a-116f-42fc-86ac-e65521ef3b68
Harvest Source Title DOJ JSON
License http://www.usa.gov/publicdomain/label/1.0/
Program Code 011:060
Publisher Hierarchy Office of Justice Programs > National Institute of Justice
Source Datajson Identifier True
Source Hash 818cb0117c24a70dd9424015fd9fd2a043da64c1e208d717f9395d87c803d934
Source Schema Version 1.1

Didn't find what you're looking for? Suggest a dataset here.