Scientific Jury Selection Controversy Summary

Audrey Clearly, “Scientific Jury Selection: History, Practice, and Controversy”. In her article, author and psychologist, Audrey Clearly describes the practice of Scientific Jury Selection (SJS). Initially appearing in 1971, Clearly highlights the trial of the Harrisburg Seven, wherein behavioral scientific techniques were developed to select potential jurors. The decision to apply to SJS was joined by the implication that, under the case’s circumstances, local residents could not abide by the Court’s standards of fairness and impartiality. The Harrisburg Seven proved to result in a presumably more favorable verdict with a subsequent pattern in the following years wherein SJS has been employed. Clearly draws upon the manner trial consulting has gained traction since the 1980s;

She disputes SJS as a limited exercise with associated experimental research resulting in practices that oppose the benefits it contends to provide. The author states that such outcomes can be further affected when using SJS regarding whether both parties in a case can afford a superior attorney or trial consultant. Joining Dawn Lord’s critique of SJS, clearly points to an overall instability of depending on SJS. Remarking on the distortion of demographics in the jury trial for O.J. Simpson, the author, argues the irony of the manner SJS, which had initially been curated to the benefit of poor criminal defendants, now serves to benefit the upper class. Finally, the author discusses the lack of regulation relative to the application and utilization of SJS. Without a consistent standard of ethical guidelines, the practice of SJS presents a high possibility of unethical behavior amongst jury consultants. Clearly commences with reforms proposed by scholars to address such issues in the practice of