{"@type": "dcat:Dataset", "accessLevel": "public", "bureauCode": ["011:21"], "contactPoint": {"@type": "vcard:Contact", "fn": "Open Data Office of Justice Programs (USDOJ)", "hasEmail": "mailto:opendata@usdoj.gov"}, "dataQuality": false, "description": "This study was undertaken for the purpose of providing an\r\n empirical picture of hung juries. Researchers were able to secure the\r\n cooperation of four courts: (1) Bronx County Supreme Court in New\r\n York, (2) Los Angeles County Superior Court in California, (3)\r\n Maricopa County Superior Court in Arizona, and (4) District of\r\n Columbia Superior Court in Washington, DC. The four sites were\r\n responsible for distributing and collecting questionnaire packets to\r\n all courtrooms hearing non-capital felony jury cases. Each packet\r\n contained a case data form requesting information about case\r\n characteristics (Part 1) and outcomes (Part 2), as well as survey\r\n questionnaires for the judges (Part 3), attorneys (Part 4), and jurors\r\n (Part 5). The case data form requested type of charge, sentence range,\r\n jury's decision, demographic information about the defendant(s) and\r\n the victim(s), voir dire (jury selection process), trial evidence and\r\n procedures, and jury deliberations. The judge questionnaire probed\r\n for evaluation of the evidence, case complexity, attorney skill,\r\n likelihood that the jury would hang, reaction to the verdict, opinions\r\n regarding the hung jury rate in the jurisdiction, and experience on\r\n the bench. The attorney questionnaire requested information assessing\r\n the voir dire, case complexity, attorney skill, evaluation of the\r\n evidence, reaction to the verdict, opinions regarding the hung jury\r\n rate in the jurisdiction, and experience in legal practice. If the\r\n jury hung, attorneys also provided their views about why the jury was\r\n unable to reach a verdict. Finally, the juror questionnaire requested\r\n responses regarding case complexity, attorney skill, evaluation of the\r\n evidence, formation of opinions, dynamics of the deliberations\r\n including the first and final votes, juror participation, conflict,\r\n reaction to the verdict, opinions about applicable law, assessment of\r\ncriminal justice in the community, and demographic information.", "distribution": [{"@type": "dcat:Distribution", "accessURL": "https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03689.v1", "title": "Evaluation of Hung Juries in Bronx County, New York, Los Angeles County, California, Maricopa County, Arizona, and Washington, DC, 2000-2001"}], "identifier": "2867", "issued": "2003-10-30T00:00:00", "keyword": ["courts", "felony offenses", "hung juries", "jury deliberations", "jury instructions", "jury selection", "mistrials", "verdicts"], "language": ["eng"], "license": "http://www.usa.gov/publicdomain/label/1.0/", "modified": "2006-03-30T00:00:00", "programCode": ["011:060"], "publisher": {"@type": "org:Organization", "name": "National Institute of Justice", "subOrganizationOf": {"acronym": "OJP", "id": 22, "name": "Office of Justice Programs", "parentOrganization": {"acronym": "DOJ", "id": 10, "name": "Department of Justice"}, "parentOrganizationID": 10}}, "title": "Evaluation of Hung Juries in Bronx County, New York, Los Angeles County, California, Maricopa County, Arizona, and Washington, DC, 2000-2001"}