storytelling rituals in jury...

Storytelling rituals in jury deliberations

LSE Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/100894/

Version: Published Version

Article:

Rossner, Meredith (2019) Storytelling rituals in jury deliberations. Oñati Socio-

legal Series,. ISSN 2079-5971

[email protected]://eprints.lse.ac.uk/

ReuseThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND) licence. This licence only allows you to download this work and share it with others as long as you credit the authors, but you can’t change the article in any way or use it commercially. More information and the full terms of the licence here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/

Oñat i I nternat ional I nst itute for the Sociology of Law

Ant igua Universidad s/ n - Apdo.28 20560 Oñat i - Gipuzkoa – Spain

Tel. (+ 34) 943 783064

E: opo@iisj .es W : ht tp: / / opo.iisj .net 1

Oñat i Socio- legal Series, First Online I SSN: 2079-5971

Storytelling Rituals in Jury Deliberat ions

MEREDI TH ROSSNER∗

Rossner, M., 2019. Storytelling Rituals in Jury Deliberat ions. Received 01-10-2018; Accepted 20-05-

2019. Oñat i Socio- legal Ser ies [ online] , for thcom ing. Available from:

ht tps: / / onat if irstonline.wordpress.com/ 2019/ 05/ 24/ rossner/

Abst ract

Research on jury deliberat ion tends to focus on deliberat ive outcom es, such as verdict

decisions. Less at tent ion is paid to the actual process of deliberat ion. This paper

analyzes a video recording of a m ock jury deliberat ion in a sim ulated crim inal t rial,

focusing on facial expression, gesture, and discourse. Drawing on ethnom ethodology

and m icro-sociological theories of r itual, I exam ine how jurors m ake sense of the

evidence presented to them and how they work together t o collect ively produce a

coherent narrat ive of events. I argue that a focus on the r itual dynam ics of the

deliberat ion help to understand how such a co-product ion can occur.

Key w ords

Jury deliberat ion; r itual; em ot ions; narrat ive; com m onsense

Resum en

La invest igación sobre la deliberación del j urado t iende a cent rarse en los resultados

de esa deliberación, com o pueden ser los veredictos. Menos atención genera el

proceso m ism o de deliberación. Este art ículo analiza una grabación de vídeo de la

deliberación de un jurado en un sim ulacro de juicio penal, y se fij a especialm ente en

las expresiones faciales, los gestos y los discursos. Basándom e en la etnom etodología

y en teorías de r itual m icrosociológicas, exam ino la form a en que los jurados buscan

el sent ido de las pruebas que se les presentan y la form a en que t rabajan juntos para

producir una narración coherente de los hechos. Argum ento que poner el énfasis en

las dinámicas r ituales de la deliberación ayuda a entender cóm o se realiza esa

producción colect iva.

Palabras clave

Deliberación del j urado; r itual; em ociones; narración; sent ido com ún

This research presented in this paper was funded by the Aust ralian Research Council, LP 0667764, Jur ies

and I nteract ive Visual Evidence: I mpacts on deliberat ion processes and outcomes. I am indebted to fr iends

and colleagues to read and commented of drafts of this work, including David Tait , Paul Rock, I nsa Koch,

and Ben Bramble. A draft of the paper was presented at the 2018 Oñat i Workshop on Judging, Emot ion,

and Emot ion Work, my thanks and grat itude to the organisers, Kathy Mack, Sharyn Roach Anleu, St ina

Bergman Blix, Terry Maroney and the other at tendees who provided a forum for st imulat ing discussion.

Finally, I am grateful to Kathy Mack and the anonymous reviewers, who helped to significant ly clar ify and

improve this work. ∗ Associate Professor of Cr im inology, Department of Law, London School of Econom ics. Contact details:

Houghton Street , London, WC2A 2AE (United Kingdom). Email address: [email protected] ORCI D:

ht tps: / / orcid.org/ 0000-0002-4744-8502

Meredith Rossner Storytelling Rituals…

Oñat i Socio- legal Ser ies, for thcom ing

I SSN: 2079-5971 2

Table of contents / Í ndice

1. I nt roduct ion ........ ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2. The r itual of j ury deliberat ion ........ ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 3

3. Storytelling and the jury ........ ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

4. The current study ........ ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

5. Methodology and analyt ic approach ......... .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

6. The jury deliberat ion ........ ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

7. Concluding rem arks ......... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

References......... .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 18



I SSN: 2079-5971 3

1 . I nt roduct ion

Most research on jury deliberat ion focuses on characterist ics of the discussion and

verdict decision. Scholars have exam ined, am ong other things, the relat ive influence

of m ajorit y and m inority viewpoints (MacCoun and Kerr 1988, Clark 1999) , the role

of gender, social class, and race (Hast ie et al. 1983, Marder 1987) , how fact ions

influence consensus (Kerr et al. 1979, Tindale et al. 1990) , and the im pact of verdict -

driven or evidence-driven deliberat ion (Hast ie et al. 1983, Kam eda 1991, Devine et

al. 2007) .

While this body of research has produced valuable evidence about decision-m aking

outcom es, there is m uch less research exam ining the dynam ics of the jury

deliberat ion process. I n an exhaust ive review, Devine and colleagues (2001) note

that while m uch research has been conducted on jury deliberat ion, m ost studies

“ focus on quant itat ive sum m aries yet fail to capture rare and potent ially decisive

phenom ena.” They suggest that this literature would benefit from in-depth studies

that look at “ key events or exchanges” in j uror interact ions (Devine et al. 2001, p.

711; see also Diam ond and Rose [ 2018] , who m ake m uch the sam e point seventeen

years later) .

This paper delves into the in-depth dynamics of j ury deliberat ion. I invest igate two

related phenom ena. The first is the extent to which the deliberat ion takes on r itual

dynam ics. The second is the extent to which the jury engages in a process of group

storytelling. These two phenom ena are interrelated – it is through a part icular form

of r itualized interact ion that they co-create a believable story of “what happened” . I n

the deliberat ion room , jurors offer com pet ing accounts to influence each other

(Devine 2012) . This is largely achieved through pract ical reasoning, drawing on a

shared stock of norm at ive assum pt ions ( i.e. com m onsense) and assert ions of expert

knowledge backed up by personal experience (Garfinkel 1967, Manzo 1993) . Over

the course of the deliberat ion, as jurors present , assess, adopt , and disregard various

elem ents of a story, t hey develop a rhythm and shared focus to t heir talk and

dem eanour that is characterist ic of an interact ion r itual, result ing in a sense of

solidarity and shared em ot ion (Collins 2004) . These r itual elem ents bring jurors

together in a way that encourages m ore collect ive storytelling and decision-m aking.

A feedback loop is created, whereby storytelling creates a shared rhythm and focus,

leading to feelings of solidarit y and shared em ot ion, leading to a further com m itm ent

to collect ive storytelling.

2 . The r itual of jury deliberat ion

The t radit ion of r itual theory within sociology has long pointed out the m icro- level,

r itual foundat ion of social solidarit y (Goffm an 1967, Collins 2004) . An interact ion

r itual can be broadly defined as any encounter where part icipants mutually focus

their at tent ion. I t can be as form al as a religious cerem ony (Durkheim 1912/ 1996)

or as inform al as acquaintances greet ing each other in the st reet (Goffm an 1967) .

Following Collins (2004) , who has developed a sophist icated m odel for how rituals

both create and sustain a shared m oral order, interact ion r ituals share the following

dist inct features: (1) people are physically together and aware of each other’s bodily

presence; (2) there are delineated boundaries between who is part icipat ing in the

interact ion and who is an outsider; and (3) part icipants have a shared focus of

at tent ion and a (4) shared m ood. This shared focus and m ood builds over t im e,

leading to a rhythm ic coordinat ion and synchronizat ion in conversat ion, bodily

m ovem ents, and em ot ions. Collins calls this “ rhythm ic ent rainm ent ” , where

part icipants becom e “caught up in the rhythm and m ood of the talk” (Collins 2004,

48) . As em ot ions are aroused, part icipants becom e even m ore invested in and

ent rained by an interact ion, thus perpetuat ing and am plifying a feedback loop ( see

also Hallet t 2003) . When this happens, an interact ion r itual com es to be m arked by

the type of collect ive effervescence described so well by Durkheim (1912/ 1996) ,

along with feelings of social solidarit y and shared em ot ion.



I SSN: 2079-5971 4

Solidarit y is a feeling of interconnectedness within and m em bership to a social group.

Solidarity in a successful interact ion r itual is accom panied by m om entary bursts of

em ot ional energy or charge. This can be a rush of shared em ot ion – it is the buzz

that com es from good interact ions.

The m odel described above is an ideal- type. Rituals can also fail, fall flat , or be

asym m et rical (with one side gaining em ot ional energy while another side loses it ) . A

st rength of Collins’ m odel is that it is part icularly well- suited to em pirical scrut iny.

The ingredients and outcom es of successful r itual can be observed and docum ented

by those who pay close enough at tent ion. For instance, solidarit y can be observed by

watching interact ions closely: people synchronize their body m ovem ents, m ake

sustained eye contact , and follow the rules of t urn- taking. I nteract ions are sm ooth,

not st ilted, and people are m ore likely to touch, sm ile, and express em ot ion.

Sociologists have used this approach to study a range of diverse interact ions,

including teacher-student interact ions in the classroom (Ritchie et al. 2011) , act ivist

groups (Sum m ers Effler 2010) , consum er com m itm ent to ethical pract ices (Brown

2011) , restorat ive just ice conferences between vict im s and offenders (Rossner

2013) , m em bership of Am erican m ega-churches (Wellm an et al. 2014) , and internal

corporate online interact ions (DiMaggio et al. 2018) .

The interact ions that take place during a jury deliberat ion lend them selves well to

this sort of scrut iny (Rossner and Tait 2011) . Jurors gather t ogether, dem arcated

from the rest of the court into a private room . They share a focus on assessing the

evidence presented dur ing the t r ial. Jury deliberat ions are also sites for em ot ional

exchange (Collins 2014, Rossner and Meher 2014) . Jurors express their em ot ion and

st rategically incite em ot ional responses in others (Lynch and Haney 2015; see also

Hast ie 2001) , and em ot ions can be produced and shared through the deliberat ion

r itual it self (Sprain and Gast il 2013) . There is also evidence that j urors who report

posit ive deliberat ive experiences are likely to be sat isfied with the deliberat ion

process (Gast il et al. 2007) and report increased t rust in their fellow jurors and the

inst itut ion of the jury (Gast il et al. 2008) . This can be interpreted as tentat ive support

for the claim that a successful r itual charges a part icipant with solidarit y and

em ot ional energy. Through an analysis of t alk, facial expression, gesture, and

dem eanour, this paper will docum ent the m utual focus and rhythm that lead to

solidarit y and shared em ot ion as jurors co-produce a narrat ive about “what

happened” .

3 . Storyte lling and the jury

I t is well established that storytelling takes unique form in legal context (Merry 1990,

Ewick and Silbey 1995, Conley and O’Barr 2005, Sarat 2015) . I ndeed, a t r ial can be

viewed as a process whereby a story, that any lay person would recognize as a story,

becom es t ransform ed into a specific kind of narrat ive: one of evidence, witnesses,

fact pat terns, etc. (Rock 1991) . A series of events m ight no longer take the form of

a linear narrat ive with com plexit ies and subt let ies, as it m ight t radit ionally be told by

a novelist or a film m aker. I nstead, the narrat ive is “ flat tened” into one that fit s certain

legal criteria (Cam m iss 2006) . Elem ents of t he story are told out of order and

piecem eal, a significant am ount of t im e and effort is spent establishing what m ay

seem to be relat ively mundane facts. The result m ay be fragm ented, disjointed, and

not a lit t le confusing. This leaves the jury with a difficult task: t ransform ing evidence,

test im ony, and argum ent back into som ething they recognize as a story (Holstein

1985) .

One way this is achieved is by bringing a fam iliar narrat ive st ructure to the evidence

and events presented at t r ial. The realm of stories is a fam iliar place for j urors, as it

is consistent with m eaning-m aking in everyday life (Bruner 1986, Ochs 2011) . I n the

story m odel of j uror decision-m aking (Bennet and Feldm an 1981, Hast ie and

Pennington 1991, Pennington and Hast ie 1991, 1992) , j urors take what inform at ion

they can from the t r ial, and im pose a narrat ive of events, assigning m eaning and



I SSN: 2079-5971 5

rank ordering the evidence and test im ony to develop a plausible account of “what

happened” . Throughout a t r ial, j urors create and revise a story in their heads as they

process inform at ion presented to them . This enables com prehension and allows them

to reach a (pre-deliberat ion) verdict . What is m issing from this account is an

explanat ion of the role of group- level deliberat ion dynam ics. I n other words, how do

the various stories that each juror t ells him self or herself about “what happened” turn

into a “m aster narrat ive” that is shared by the group?

What is a story?

Sim ply put , a story is “an account of a sequence of events in the order in which they

occurred to m ake a point ” (Pollet ta et al. 2011, p. 3, cit ing Labov and Waletsky 1967) .

This definit ion obscures the com plexit ies and debates around the form stories can

take (Do they need a plot? Do they need an ending? Must there be a m oral?) .

However, it is useful in that it allows a dist inct ion to be m ade between stories and

reasons, both of which are frequent ly ut ilized during deliberat ion (Bruner 1991,

Pollet ta and Lee 2006) . While reasons can be sim ple statem ents that j ust ify an

opinion by evoking general principles, stories “ integrate descript ion, explanat ion, and

evaluat ion; they are detached from the surrounding discourse; they are allusive in

m eanings; and they are iterat ive in the sense that they elicit m ore stories in

response” (Pollet ta and Lee 2006, p. 702) . This final point is part icularly relevant

when invest igat ing how a group co-creates a story. Storytelling is often a social and

culturally-pat terned act ivit y. I t is largely shaped by the teller, but also by the

audience, who m ay respond, dispute, or add to it . I n this way, stories evolve (Ochs

and Capps 2009) . I n a jury deliberat ion, j urors work together t o create a “m aster

narrat ive” of what “actually happened” drawing on a com binat ion of the stories that

are presented to them at t r ial and the stories from their own lives (Conley and Conley

2009; see also Lerner 1992) . This m aster narrat ive is cont inually asserted,

challenged, and revised over the course of the deliberat ion.

Using com m onsense to tell a story

Jurors at tem pt t o persuade each other using a num ber of narrat ive st rategies, largely

drawing on various concept ions of “ com m onsense” (Finkel 2009) . A sm all body of

research in this area uses ethnom ethodological approaches to uncover the “actual

pract ices” of the jury. This work is inspired by the classic observat ions m ade by

Garfinkel (1967) in his study of a civil j ury. Garfinkel noted a tension around the

“official line” and actual pract ices of j urors. There are clear rules about what m akes

a “good juror” – one who privileges the law and evidence over sym pathy, suspends

personal preferences, and acts as “any m an” . A “good juror” is careful and m easured

and object ive in separat ing fact from fancy (Garfinkel 1967, p. 111) . 1 While j urors

accept the official line, they also use a num ber of “ rules of everyday life” , or

com m onsense st rategies, to m ake sense of their decision. Jurors use these st rategies

to sort the different claim s m ade during the t r ial and by other j urors into a “corpus

of knowledge, that has in part the form of a chronological story and in part the form

of a set of general em pirical relat ionships” (Garfinkel 1967, p. 107) . Garfinkel

provides an account of the “ rules” j urors em ploy to develop a story of “what

happened” . Research in this t radit ion focuses on the different ways that j urors “do”

decision-m aking. Consistent with an ethnom ethodological approach, scholars in this

area tend to provide in-depth analysis of one or a sm all num ber of j ury deliberat ions.

For instance, Gibson (2016) dem onst rates ways jurors em ploy taxonom ic not ions of

how a “norm al, innocent person” should act . Such not ions draw on typificat ions or a

shared knowledge of the characterist ics people have and roles they play in a society

(Schutz 1967) . I n the j ury deliberat ion he analyzed (a drug sm uggling case) , m ost

j urors were not happy with the story asserted by the defense: they did not think it

was “norm al” for an unem ployed wom an (and a m other of a young child) to take two

vacat ions from Arizona to New York in two weeks, part icularly with a fr iend who she

1 Note the sim ilar it ies between this and what makes an effect ive lawyer (Sarat and Felst iner 1986) .



I SSN: 2079-5971 6

should have known to be a drug sm uggler. Such “norm at ive assert ions” (Manzo

1994) carry im plicit shared assum pt ions about the priorit ies and needs of

unem ployed people and m others, and the dynam ics of fr iendship. Underlying such

taxonom ic dist inct ions are generat ive rules of norm alcy, or abst racted assum pt ions

about reasons for act ion, rules for the expression of em ot ions, and rules guiding

interact ions within relat ionships (Gibson 2016; see also Pollet ta and Lee 2006 for an

analysis of reasons and their underlying principles) .

I n addit ion to such typificat ions, j urors m ay tell stories that m ake general claim s of

expert ise (Manzo 1994) , oft en drawing on their personal experience (Manzo 1993) .

Like Douglas (1971) , j urors prize experient ial knowledge, som et im es m ore than

expert conjecture. When jurors m ake such assert ions, they need to be recognized by

the group as legit im ate claim s to knowledge in order to have any relevance. I n this

way, such claim s are interact ional achievem ents (Schegloff 1982) . 2

Maynard and Manzo (1993) exam ine the st rategies that j urors em ploy to “do” j ust ice

as a pract ical act ivit y. When faced with a defendant who clearly m eets the elem ents

of the charge, but other factors lead m ost j urors to conclude it is not r ight to convict ,

j urors reconst ruct their task as one of “doing just ice” . They fram e their narrat ive in

these term s and tell stories from their own lives that allow them to acquit a “guilt y”

person. I n a sim ilar vein, Conley and Conley (2009) dem onst rate the collaborat ive

nature of storytelling when it com es to how jurors “do” credibilit y when discussing

part icular witnesses.

This paper seeks to add to this body of knowledge. The ethnom ethodological

approach to studying how jurors m ake m eaning through talk provides valuable

insights into deliberat ion pract ices. I add to t his a r itual fram ework, arguing that

j urors don’t j ust m ake m eaning though their talk – the deliberat ion is an em bodied,

em ot ional exchange that takes on r itual form , leading to feelings of solidarit y and

shared em ot ion. As jurors develop rhythm ic ent rainm ent and feelings of solidarit y,

the “m aster narrat ive” becom es a co-product ion. The analysis below explores the

relat ionship between com m onsense reasoning, storytelling, and interact ion r itual.

Using m ock jurors deliberat ing in a realist ic set t ing, it provides a dynam ic explorat ion

of the r itual elem ents of how jurors negot iate the contours of a story.

4 . The current study

This study uses a video- recording of a m ock jury deliberat ion. The data were collected

as part of an Aust ralian Research Council- funded study of j uries and interact ive visual

evidence (JIVE) (Tait and Goodm an-Delahunty 2016) . The JIVE project was a large-

scale experim ent with m ock jurors that exam ined how juries interpret different kinds

of visual evidence. Jury-eligible part icipants were from the greater Sydney region,

and were ident ified with the help of a m arket research firm . Once they consented to

take part in the research, part icipants were divided into 12 person juries, with sim ilar

dem ographic dist ribut ions.

Two com m on crit icism s of m ock jury research are it s lack of ecological validity

(Bornstein 1999) and it s consequent ialit y (Bornstein and McCabe 2005) . That is, they

are not realist ic and there is no reason for m ock jurors to take their task seriously.

This is a valid crit ique, as m uch jury research is conducted on psychology

undergraduate students who are presented with a t ranscript of a m ock t r ial ( though

see Bornstein et al. 2017) . Often, they do not deliberate. When they do, it is often in

a fair ly art ificial set t ing. I n order t o m ake each jury experience as realist ic as possible,

the research team in this study secured the use of a heritage court room in downtown

Sydney norm ally used by the New South Wales Suprem e Court . Jurors sat in a real

2 Schegloff exam ines some st rategies that people use, such as nodding one’s head and saying “uh-huh” ,

to validate and encourage a speaker. I t is worth not ing that these examples can also indicate the rhythm ic

ent rainment of an interact ion r itual (Collins 2004) .



I SSN: 2079-5971 7

court room during the t r ial and ret ired to a real deliberat ion room for their

deliberat ion.

A Suprem e Court j udge – one of the partner invest igators – agreed to preside over

the sim ulated t r ial. Real lawyers and expert witnesses perform ed their roles, and a

m em ber of the research team acted as the defendant . The story told at t r ial was as

follows: A bom b explosion killed several com m uters on a t rain in downtown Sydney.

The source of the explosion was t raced to a gym bag underneath a seat in one of the

carriages. “Mr. Wheel” , a single white m an in his thirt ies, was charged with murder

and possession of explosives. The prosecut ion added the following elem ents to the

story: CCTV footage ident ified Mr. Wheel carrying such a bag onto the t rain, and then

leaving the t rain several stops later without the bag. They also provided evidence

that Mr. Wheel’s fam ily had st rong t ies to a white suprem acist organizat ion. At Mr.

Wheel’s house, chem icals that could be used in bom b m aking, as well as hateful

literature, were found. Addit ionally, a police forensic scient ist presented evidence of

explosive residue inside the gym bag and anim ated visual evidence of the bom b’s

likely path. The defense told an alternat ive version of events: Mr. Wheel volunteered

at a com m unity cent re in the north of the city as a tennis coach. After a long day of

tennis, he boarded the t rain to go hom e. He got off the t rain at the stop closest t o

his hom e, and, realising that he accidentally left his bag on the t rain, im m ediately

reported it to the lost and found office at the t rain stat ion. He denied any knowledge

of a bom b on a t rain, or any white suprem acist literature or chem icals at his house,

which he shares with his brother. A forensic scient ist for the defense presented

evidence suggest ing that the bom b could have been in an alternate locat ion (not in

the defendant ’s bag, but in a nearby cardboard box) and st ill produce the sam e

residue found in the t rain carriage. Jurors also received judicial inst ruct ion on how to

interpret visual evidence and deliberate. Each t r ial lasted about an hour, with the

deliberat ions taking approxim ately 1 hour and 15 m inutes. Deliberat ions took place

in real j ury room s at t he courthouse and were video recorded with part icipants’

consent . 3

Unlike real j ury deliberat ions in m ost Com m on Law jurisdict ions, the researchers

em ployed a facilitated deliberat ion m ethod. This is sim ilar to the m odel adopted in

civilian m ixed t r ibunals consist ing of both lay and professional j udges, where

deliberat ions are led by the presiding professional j udge (Ivković 2015) , or in the

case of the Spanish lay jury, by a clerk of the court ( Jim eno-Bulnes and Hans 2016) .

For the purposes of this study, facilitat ion enabled the deliberat ion to take place in

under two hours. Under an im part ial facilitator’s guidance, j urors engaged in a series

of discussions around specific points of the t r ial. Following this, the facilitator took a

vote by asking jurors to raise their hands, result ing in a m ajorit y verdict . Using this

approach, the facilitator perform ed m any of the tasks of a foreperson, but did not

part icipate in any discussions. However, in order t o keep the deliberat ions a

reasonable length, the facilitator would at t im es guide the jury to a new topic or piece

of evidence to discuss. This resulted in the deliberat ions being m ore standardized.

The presence of a facilitator, the lack of a unanim ous verdict , and the use of m ock

jurors are lim itat ions of this design, reducing the robustness of claim s about

storytelling and ritual in deliberat ion. However, t here are two reasons to be relat ively

confident about these claim s. The first is that , as will be discussed below, the findings

are consistent with in-depth research on real j ury deliberat ions, as reported by

Maynard and Manzo (1993) , Conley and Conley (2009) and Gibson (2016) . Second,

while it m ay seem reasonable to hypothesize that these factors would lim it effect ive

r itual and em ot ional exchange, this was not the case. During the deliberat ion and in

discussion after it s conclusion, j urors were enthusiast ic and com m it ted to the

exercise (Goodm an-Delahunty et al. 2011) . Even with a facilitator present to keep

the deliberat ion within a reasonable t im e, j urors developed the m utual focus and

3 For more informat ion on the larger research project , see Tait and Goodman-Delahunty (2016) . I n total

there were twelve deliberat ions.



I SSN: 2079-5971 8

rhythm of an interact ion r itual. This will be discussed in m ore detail below. I t is

possible that without the const raints of the facilitator and in a real set t ing, the

findings presented below would be even st ronger.

5 . Methodology and analyt ic approach

This paper exam ines a deliberat ion from a single jury who received visual evidence,

expert test im ony, and judicial inst ruct ions. I t does not present the results of the

larger experim ent (see Tait 2011 and Tait and Goodm an-Delahunty 2016) . The

exploratory nature of t he invest igat ion and the unique r ichness of the video data

m ake an analysis of a single case suitable. 4 The data are drawn from the video and

audio recording of the deliberat ion.

A few notable scholars have used video and audio recordings of j uries to invest igate

the dynam ics of deliberat ion (Maynard and Manzo 1993, Manzo 1993, 1994, 1996,

Conley and Conley 2009, Gibson 2016) . One reason this literature is so sm all m ay be

the lack of data available on real deliberat ing juries, due to legal protect ions. To date,

there very few sources of data on real j ury deliberat ions, aside from a few that have

been film ed for televised docum entaries (one in Wisconsin in 1986 and four in Arizona

in 1997) . 5

The overwhelm ing m ajorit y of research on jury deliberat ion (and jury decision-

m aking m ore broadly) com es from sim ulated t r ials with m ock jurors. Exam ples of in-

depth studies of m ock jury deliberat ions include an analysis of the com plexity of

discussion (Holstein 1985) , the psychoanalyt ic dynamics of em ot ions during

deliberat ion (Winship 2000) , and the role of em ot ion in the capital-penalty of

deliberat ion (Lynch and Haney 2015) .

This analysis seeks to understand how jurors m ake sense of the deliberat ion process,

and how they work together to create a plausible story, and part icipate in a successful

interact ion r itual. 6 Taking cues from Goffm an (1967) and Collins (2004) , this paper

takes the encounter as the unit of analysis, focusing on the dynam ics of the situat ion,

and not on any individual characterist ics of a j uror.

The value of a video recording is that both audio and visual cues guide the analysis.

A video recording of a deliberat ion produces a large am ount of data (as Diam ond and

collaborators [ 2003] have also noted) . I t is possible to docum ent what people look

like, what they say to each other, how they say it , and how others in the room react

to specific statem ents. I n this art icle, st ill fram es from the deliberat ion are used to

exam ine key instances of facial and bodily cues and gestures. To analyze facial

expressions, this analysis adopts Ekm an’s (Ekm an and Friesen 1975, Ekm an 2004)

coding fram ework for studying facial expression and em ot ion.

Visual data on body language, group focus and solidarit y is influenced by Collins’s

(2004) approach to analyzing interact ion r itual ( see Rossner 2011 for an in-depth

explanat ion of using video to analzye r itual interact ions) . Verbal exchanges are

t ranscribed in a m odified version of conversat ion analyt ic t ranscript ion convent ions

4 For more on the use of a single interact ion as a methodology, see Schegloff (1987) . As is the convent ion

with such a methodology, the aim is not to generalize, but rather to explore the range of linguist ic and

para- linguist ic pract ices that such a deliberat ion m ight entail. See also Tait (2001) for a discussion about

the methods of observing court r ituals. 5 A second source are from the Ar izona Jury Project , where 50 civ il j ur ies were recorded and their

deliberat ion t ranscr ibed, coded and analysed by a team of social scient ists (Diamond et al. 2003) . This

data has produced significant insight into the workings of the jury, including how jurors respond to

“blindfolding” (Vidmar and Diamond 2001) , rules around discussing evidence (Diamond et al. 2003) , how

they navigate the unanim ity requirement (Diamond et al. 2006) , how they comprehend judicial

inst ruct ions (Diamond et al. 2012) , and how they talk about experts (Diamond et al. 2014) . While some

excerpts and exchanges between jurors are presented in these works, most data is quant if ied and

presented in aggregate form . This quant if icat ion is made possible by the Project ’s unique access to mult iple

deliberat ions. 6 Jurors, of course, can fail to agree on a single story, although hung jur ies are exceedingly rare. See

Thomas (2010) .



I SSN: 2079-5971 9

(Atkinson and Heritage 1984) . I n these data, individual j urors are ident ified by a

num ber, j uror 1, j uror 2 and so on.

There is a large body of social-psychological literature on how gender, race, social

class, bias, and prior at t itudes m ay im pact j ury decision-m aking (see Devine 2012

for a thorough review) . This research suggests t hat while background characterist ics

and at t itudes can im pact decision-m aking, in som e cases deliberat ion seem s to

reduce prior biases (Tait 2011, Devine 2012) . This analysis does not seek to

underplay what j urors bring with them to the deliberat ion table in term s of status

characterist ics and at t itudes. However, it follows the approach set out by Maynard

and Manzo (1993) , that “ the im m ediate invocat ion of social st ructural or other

variables (…) obscures appreciat ion of form s of pract ical act ion that lie in the details

of actual deliberat ive proceedings” (Maynard and Manzo 1993, p. 174) . I n other

words, the “actual pract ices” of talk and interact ion are foregrounded in the present

analysis, though of course insights gained from such a m icro- level analysis can reveal

st ructure.

The next sect ion presents a series of key exchanges from the jury deliberat ion. I n

these exchanges there are three em erging interact ional achievem ents: (1) the shift

in dynamic that takes place from jurors m aking individual statem ents independent of

each other, t o j urors working together to produce a coherent narrat ive; (2) the way

jurors use com m onsense not ions to interpret and evaluate the evidence and each

other ’s com pet ing stories; and (3) the way jurors engage each other to assess the

m erits of a story. That is, they co-produce a story of “what happened” .

6 . The jury deliberat ion

Twelve jurors and one facilitator sit in a sm all room around a dark wooden table. The

im age below is taken from the first few seconds of the deliberat ion. The cam era

rem ains fixed above and behind the facilitator’s left shoulder. Consequent ly a few

jurors are not in the fram e unless they, or the people obscuring them , m ove (which

does happen at different points during the deliberat ion) . This lim its som e visual

inform at ion. Jurors are num bered 1 through 12 start ing with the person sit t ing on

the facilitator’s im m ediate r ight and proceeding counter clockwise around the table.

Juror 1 is out of the shot , but there is a clear view of j urors 2 through 7. For the m ost

part j urors 8 and 9 are obscured ( though becom e visible at som e points during the

deliberat ion) , j uror 10 and 11 are part ially obscured. Juror 12 is in view, but only in

profile.

FI GURE 1

Figure 1 . The start of the deliberat ion.



I SSN: 2079-5971 10

The facilitator suggests that they go around the room and each m ake a general

statem ent . Once each person has spoken once, the group m oves to a less st ructured

deliberat ion where they assess the evidence, t he expert witnesses, and the judicial

inst ruct ions.

After these first statem ents, a general consensus form s that there is not enough

evidence and no st rong m ot ive to convict the defendant ( j urors 10 and 11 m ake up

a m inority fact ion who are willing to convict , j urors 8 and 9 are not sure) . Sim ilar to

the real j uries analyzed by Conley and Conley (2009) , j urors are quick to point out

the gaps in both the prosecut ion and defense story presented at t r ial, thus hint ing at

the existence of a “ real story” that needs to be uncovered. Most j urors m ake very

sim ilar opening statem ents (see Maynard and Manzo 1993 for a sim ilar phenom enon

in the real j ury they analyzed) . For exam ple:

Juror 4: I thought there were som e things that were m issing, that we weren’t hearing,

that didn’t seem to connect up… The m ot ive didn’t really st r ike m e as being

part icular ly shown.

Juror 5: There was no m ot ive really ident ified.

Juror 6: Yes, I felt that he sim ply forgot his bag and he had no proven m ot ive to

com m it this cr ime.

Juror 12: Just for the am ount of evidence we were given, I didn’t find that t here could

be m any conclusions m ade.

On the other hand:

Juror 10: The physical evidence from the technical guy pret ty well concluded that it

did com e from the bag, so that was sort of st rong, in m y opinion.

While an early consensus is building, it is not a group effort . As they go around the

room each juror m akes a discrete statem ent with lit t le collaborat ion. Even when they

m ove into an unst ructured discussion, j urors do not engage with each other. Jurors

are m aking claim s and giving reasons, but not storytelling. The general tone is closer

to that of “posit ion statem ents” that m ight be m ade in m eet ings in inst itut ional

set t ings, as discussed by Manzo (1996) . Jurors appear disengaged from each other

(see Figure 1) While each juror is speaking, they focus their eyes on the facilitator,

not on each other. The j urors’ act ions and statem ents suggest lit t le group cohesion.

Only when they begin to argue or work out a story together do they develop rhythm ,

ent rainm ent , and other signs of an interact ion r itual.

An init ial at tem pt at storytelling

There is a brief m om ent of discord at the conclusion of this sect ion. After a discussion

where jurors ident ify the issues im portant to them , the facilitator asks if there is

anything to add. Before she finishes speaking, Juror 3, who has her r ight hand on

the side of her forehead, begins to m ove her hand away from her head and slowly

wave her finger in the air toward the facilitator. She is sit t ing back from the table a

lit t le, with her other hand rest ing on her lap on top of a large coat . Her face appears

tense, with narrowed eyes and a creased brow. Her lips are pursed together and the

area around her nose is creased. Overall, her expression indicates anxiety. She

appears reluctant to assert herself, by subt ly m oving her fingers in the air, she seeks

perm ission from the facilitator to speak.



I SSN: 2079-5971 11

FI GURE 2

Figure 2 . Seeking perm ission to speak.

She cont inues to wave her finger and m ake eye contact with the facilitator unt il the

facilitator nods at her. At this point she begins to speak. 7

Excerpt 1: Juror 3 quest ions the CCTV

Juror 3 anxiously suggests that if there was CCTV footage of the defendant carrying

his gym bag on the t rain ( this was presented to them ) , then there should be sim ilar

footage of the hypothet ical cardboard box that the defense expert suggests could

have also been on the t rain carrying the bom b. This is the first at tem pt to art iculate

a story connect ing the defendant , the bag, t he box, and the t rain. She appears

apprehensive and tentat ive about this; her hands touch her face the whole t im e.

Juror 12, 2, and 4 roundly reject her statem ent in lines 10-12. Juror 12 is the m ost

forceful in her reject ion ( line 7. See also Figure 3) . She sits up and m oves her head

slight ly backwards. At the sam e t im e she relaxes her lower j aw and pulls her lips

7 The notat ions that follow is a var iat ion of Conversat ion Analysis (see Sacks et al. 1974, Schegloff 2007).

Br iefly, brackets denote over lapping speech, under lined text denotes emphasis, full stops denote br ief

pauses, double brackets denote non-verbal cues.



I SSN: 2079-5971 12

back in a frown, grim acing and displaying an expression of disgust . Juror 2 and 4

appear t o back her up. Her body posit ion is such that she is discouraging juror 3 from

cont inuing with this story (Goodwin 1984) .

FI GURE 3

Figure 3 . Grim ace of disbelief.

The facilitator interrupts this exchange ( line 13) , cut t ing off j uror 4. Jurors 5 and 2

are t rying to get her at t ent ion, waving their hands in the air. She m ot ions for them

to speak and juror 5 m akes a short statem ent followed by juror 2. These two

statem ents do not flow from the previous exchange and are ut tered com pletely

independent of each other. Juror 5 brings up his opinion of the com puter sim ulat ion,

and juror 2 quest ions who the intended vict im s are. These isolated ut terances

suggest a series of m onologues rather than dialogue.

Although the conversat ion has m oved on, j uror 3 st ill focuses on the previous

exchange. She signals towards juror 12, drawing her at tent ion away from juror 5,

who now has the floor. She nods her head and soft ly says “ thank you” . Juror 12 nods

back and then returns her at tent ion to j uror 5. Juror 3 looks down briefly and then

also turns her head toward juror 5. As shown in figure 4, com pared to the other

part icipants (especially j uror 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 12) she disengages from the

interact ion. She leans back in her chair, covers herself with her coat , and prevents

herself from talking by covering her m outh.

FI GURE 4

Figure 4 . Juror 3 w ithdraw s.



I SSN: 2079-5971 13

Com m onsense reasoning to test the defendant ’s story

At this point in the deliberat ion there is lit t le indicat ion of group rapport . The jurors

appear uncom fortable and unsure of each other. Most of them hesitate slight ly before

they speak. However, a rhythm begins to develop over t im e. I n the next stage, the

facilitator asks the jurors to discuss which pieces of evidence were the m ost

convincing. Sim ilar to the earlier discussion, m ost j urors were not sat isfied with the

prosecut ion evidence. At the sam e t im e, m any are skept ical of parts of the

defendant ’s story. Jurors begin to use various com m onsense explanat ions to at tem pt

to develop a narrat ive of what ( likely) happened or not .

Juror 9: When I am on a t rain, I always put whatever I take with m e a clear and

visible m eans to take it out . I m ean, they didn’t go into his character, what his

occupat ion was or whatever, and I was watching him and the way he sort of got up

and sat down and he was very m et iculous in his act ions, even in his choice of speech

and so on, and I would have thought the guy was pret ty cluey, you know, m ore an

accountant style or som ething, where everything fit ted in a pat tern. So I wouldn’t

have thought that the sports bag would have ended up under his seat . I woulda

thought that it woulda been near his feet or on the chair next to him ? Uh, and I can’t

see a fellow like that actually leaving som ething behind, given that he does the sam e

thing every week. How, all of a sudden, would he forget the bag? I t j ust didn’t seem

correct to m e. But as I say, given the innuendo, and m y feeling was yes there was

guilt , I don’t think anything was proven beyond reasonable doubt .

Juror 9 em ploys a com binat ion of norm at ive assum pt ions of how an “accountant ”

would act as well as drawing on personal experience of how one rides a t rain. Though

he suspects that the defendant is guilt y, he does not draw on the prosecut ion

evidence to reach this conclusion (hence him stat ing that nothing was proven beyond

reasonable doubt ) . Rather he uses these st rategies of pract ical reasoning to test the

defendant ’s story. I n his view, the defendant doesn’t fit the taxonom ic not ion of

som eone who leaves things on a t rain. He looks too “ cluey” and like an “accountant ” ,

not som eone who would “actually leave som ething behind” ( the actor playing the

defendant was a m em ber of the research team , a white Brit ish m an in his 30’s) .

Based on his own experience of carrying bags on t rains, it does not m ake sense that

a m an like him would place his bag between his feet and then forget about it . I n

other words, the defendant ’s story does not fit one of a “norm al, innocent person”

(Gibson 2016) .

Juror 8 speaks next , and again uses personal experience and norm at ive assum pt ions

to bolster j uror 9’s debunking of the defendant ’s story.

Juror 8: … I ’ve got two kids and carry shopping on the t rain and, I know where m y

bags are. I f you’ve only got one person with one bag surely it ’s NOT likely that you

would forget your bag, I kind of thought .

Juror 9: m m m m m .

Juror 8 uses a sim ilar st rategy of recount ing personal experience plus m aking

norm at ive assum pt ions about what a “norm al” person in the defendant ’s posit ion

would do. Juror 9 supports her, m urm uring in agreem ent . Both juror 9 and 8 are

obscured due to the locat ion of the (stat ic) cam era, so their facial expression,

gestures, and interact ions with each other cannot be observed.

Most j urors use variat ions of com m onsense reasoning to voice their suspicion of the

offender. However, there are equally plausible counter-stories, again drawing on

m ethods of pract ical reasoning.

Juror 7: Ahh, the prosecutor m ade a great thing about ‘why didn’t he report the

cardboard box?’ And I think I can understand where the defendant was com ing from

when he said he just didn’t think to m ent ion it (shrugs his shoulders) . I really don’t

think I would. So far as the bag being left on the t rain, I think THOUsands of people

do that EVERYDAY on suburban t rains. I f you want to go to the railway lost property

office, you’ll see MILLions of item s left on the t rain, you know, bikes, backhoes and

t ractors and goodness knows what . You know, HUGE item s (dem onst rates size with



I SSN: 2079-5971 14

hand gesture) , not just sm all item s like bags. So either side really didn’t convince

m e.

According to this logic, the defendant ’s failure to rem em ber his bag when he got off

the t rain is consistent with what “ thousands” of people do every day. Juror 7 is

m aking a claim in support of the defendant ’s story by drawing on typificat ions of what

“norm al” com m uters do ( they don’t think too m uch about cardboard boxes they m ay

see underneath a seat near them and they forget their bags on the t rain) .

These exam ples suggest that j urors com e up with their own rat ionales for why the

defendant would or would not leave his bag on the t rain. Rather than accept the

expert evidence, they create their own story from norm at ive assum pt ions and

personal experience.

The Ritual Elem ents of Group Storytelling

As the jurors deliberate, they follow turn- taking rules, respond to each cont r ibut ion

and create a rhythm ic dialogue. There are two parallel stories in com pet it ion with

each other: one that is consistent with defendant ’s story and one that challenges it .

As the jurors cont inue to deliberate they evaluate both stories to see which one

provides the best fit .

An exam ple of this is when juror 3 at tem pts to further develop her story. She is st ill

in a defensive posit ion, sit t ing back and hiding under her coat . A key difference in

this interact ion is that while the others m ay not accept her story, they work together

to decide if it is plausible. This exchange is m arkedly different from the previous one:

the first interact ion was asym m et rical in that she puts forward an interpretat ion that

is quickly and roundly rejected by all. This t ime, a rhythm had developed am ongst

the part icipants, and her story is received quite different ly. They start off this

exchange with j uror 8 com paring the expert witness for the prosecut ion (who

presented anim ated evidence of the bom b’s path) and the expert witness for the

defense (who presented the alternat ive story about a cardboard box containing a

bom b) .

Excerpt 2: More challenges to CCTV



I SSN: 2079-5971 15

I n this exchange, j uror 3 returns to her line of reasoning about the possibilit y of CCTV

footage of a cardboard box. Although juror 8 and possibly 1 and 7 don’t quite accept

her story, they use hum our to diffuse the situat ion, and work together t o decide if it

m akes sense. Juror 3 com m unicates a num ber of different cues in this exchange. At

the beginning ( in lines 1-4) , as juror 8 is talking, she is intensely focused on her,

perhaps readying herself to speak ( figure 5) .

FI GURE 5

Figure 5 . Juror 3 focus.

Although she is st ill hiding behind her coat , her eyes are narrowed as she focuses on

juror 8, t o whom she offers agreem ent and support in line 3 and line 5. She ventures

another statem ent at line 7, sim ilar to her earlier at tem pt that was rej ected by juror

12, but she appears wary; as soon as she finished speaking, she leans back and

withdraws, hiding further under her coat ( figure 6) .

FI GURE 6

Figure 6 . Juror 3 w ithdraw s after speaking.

Unlike the previous exchange, the other j urors encourage dialogue. Juror 8 presents

a counter argum ent to j uror 3 in lines 16-17, but j uror 3 counters this with an

addit ional argum ent in lines 21 and 24. Her statem ent in line 24 ( “He was a decoy! ” )

is said half in j est , she sm iles broadly and cocks her finger toward juror 8 ( figure 7) .

A num ber of j urors laugh together at this, and the m ood is lightened. This shared

laughter and sm iling indicates a growing rapport developing in the group.

FI GURE 7

Figure 7 . Joking and laughter.



I SSN: 2079-5971 16

FI GURE 8

Figure 8 . Mutual Focus.

At the end of this exchange, the jurors appear engaged and m utually focused. They

look around the table at each other instead of focusing on the facilitator ( figure 8) .

The jurors cont inue to test elem ents of the defendant ’s story. The conversat ion

begins to develop a rhythm and flow com m on to high solidarit y interact ions. I n the

following exchange, a num ber of j urors work together to m ake sense of the evidence.

They focus on a few key point points. First , the defendant test ified that he boarded

the t rain in the north of the city, heading hom e to Pot ts Point after spending a few

hours volunteering as a tennis coach. He boarded the t rain with his tennis bag, and

disem barked a few stops later in the center of t own (Wynyard Stat ion) . He realizes

that he left his bag on the t rain and goes to lost propert y to report this. Meanwhile,

the t rain cont inues a few m ore stops to another inner city t rain stat ion (Redfern)

where the bom b is detonated. Som e of the jurors work together to evaluate this

story:

Excerpt 3: Discussion over com m ut ing and defendant credibilit y



I SSN: 2079-5971 17

This exchange begins with j uror 9 challenging the defendant ’s story, arguing that it

doesn’t m ake sense to get off the t rain at Wynyard if you live in Pot ts Point . He uses

local knowledge to poke holes in this narrat ive. Juror 6 presents a counter argum ent ,

confirm ing that this part icular t ravel arrangem ent could be plausible.

Juror 8 then approaches the story from a different angle. The defense was relying on

a character defense – plant ing the narrat ive that som eone who volunteers as a tennis

coach surely can’t be a terrorist . She refutes this, list ing instances where so-called

“good characters” are crim inal. Juror 2 encourages this developm ent , quickly

providing confirm at ion. Juror 4 develops this alternate narrat ive further, suggest ing

that he taught t ennis as an excuse to t ransport a bom b on a t rain. They are working

together t o build a story that condem ns the defendant .

At line 14, j uror 9 m oves the conversat ion back to t rains. He points out a flaw to the

story they are generat ing (Wynyard and Cent ral are the busiest interchanges, and

the m ost “sensible” places to detonate a bom b) . Juror 10 t r ies to answer this,

stum bling on the difference between m ot ive and alibi (presum ably) . Juror 8 m oves

back to the discussion in lines 6-13 about the defendant ’s character, suggest ing that

he only reported his bag as lost in order to increase the chances of casualty. However,

j uror 2 refutes this with com m onsense reasoning about the long queues at the lost

property office.

I n this exchange seven different j urors work together t o co-produce a story of events.

They are t rying out a num ber of different lines, t o see what fit s best . They are

aroused, speaking over each other and overlapping to add different bits. There is a

general m ood of excitem ent ; the jurors lean in to each other, keen to cont r ibute. I n

this instance jurors are using a num ber of st rategies to collect ively m ake sense of

the story – they draw on typificat ions (of m onsters hiding in plain sight , such as “killer

nurses” and “pedophiles in the church” ) , they test the st rength and logic of alternate

narrat ives, they build on each other’s statem ents to ratchet up the narrat ive of the

defendant as despicable ( for exam ple, by first rej ect ing the argum ent that being a

tennis coach is evidence of good character, m oving up to the suspicion that he only

plays tennis so he had a way to get a bag on a t rain, to finally speculat ing that he

reported the bag as stolen to m axim ize casualt ies) . I t is a very different kind of

interact ion from the beginning of the deliberat ion, where each juror presented

discrete, independent statem ents. I n this excerpt j urors dem onst rate a shared sense

of excitem ent as they work together t o uncover the “ real” story. There is a palpable

buzz in the room , jurors are excited by their talk and their storytelling.

7 . Concluding rem arks

This paper exam ines the r itual dynamics of deliberat ion and the methods jurors

em ploy to develop a narrat ive that m akes sense to them . I t reveals the r ich and

com plex dynam ics of j ury deliberat ion. The data are unique in that they allow for

both audio and visual com ponents of the analysis. An exam inat ion of j urors’ faces,

bodies, gestures, words, and tone supports the ethnom ethodological readings of j ury

deliberat ion. Jurors draw together fragm ents of a story ( the evidence presented at

the t r ial) , m aking these fragm ents whole with com m onsense reasoning. They

produce a num ber of discrete statem ents at first and are quick to disregard com pet ing

lines. Over t im e they develop a rapport , and, while they st ill m ight not agree with

each other, their interact ions are m arked by increased cooperat ion, solidarit y, and

shared em ot ion as they slowly co-produce a narrat ive. This can be seen in how the

jurors interact at the end of their deliberat ion. Unlike earlier exchanges, there is

laughing, synchronizat ion and rhythm to their speech, direct eye contact , and an

overall lighter m ood. They seem to enjoy each other ’s com pany. The relat ionship

between ritual and storytelling is iterat ive – telling stories draws part icipants in,

leading to a m utual focus and shared em ot ion, result ing in further co-operat ion and

co-product ion of a story. The end of their deliberat ion is m arked by r itual displays of

solidarit y – they m ake eye contact with each other, laugh, sm ile, and display



I SSN: 2079-5971 18

behaviours that suggest their em ot ions are aligned. I ndeed, these em ot ions

cont inued once they left the deliberat ion room , they were eager to cont inue

discussing the case with each other and with the researchers (Goodm an-Delahunty

et al. 2011) .

Of course, the single deliberat ion presented here m ay not be indicat ive of all j ury

processes. This analysis is an elaborat ion of one type of t rajectory. Other

deliberat ions m ay follow alternate paths – there m ay be m ore dram at ic fact ions,

m ult iple narrat ives that are never resolved, or ext rem e abuses of power and status.

By present ing a unique set of m ethodologies and a theoret ical fram ework that

em phasizes the r itual dynam ics of the group, this study provides social scient ists with

the tools to bet ter exam ine these jury dynam ics. Future research can build on this to

ident ify effect ive pathways to collaborat ion and solidarity.

Jury deliberat ions are a unique form of conversat ion that is necessarily const rained.

Turn taking rules are m odified, and the interact ion can at t im e take on a form al

m eet ing style (Manzo 1996) . The m ethods em ployed in this research project m ay

further const rain the interact ion. The facilitated m ethod of deliberat ion was a

necessary com ponent of the research, due to the operat ional const raints of data

collect ion. At t im es during this deliberat ion, as jurors would begin to develop a

m om entum and rhythm , they would be thwarted by the facilitator who would

interrupt and change the subject ( to keep within the t im e const raints) . Without this

const raint , perhaps the collect ive storytelling would play an even larger role in the

process. I t is worth not ing, however, that even with this added elem ent to the

deliberat ion, the st ructure of talk was rem arkably sim ilar to those found in real j uries,

as analyzed by Maynard and Manzo (1993) , Conley and Conley (2009) , and Gibson

(2016) .

The deliberat ion analysed here details how an interact ion r itual unfolds in t im e and

space to produce solidarit y, shared em ot ion, and a collaborat ive story based on

com m onsense reasoning. While there is a long t radit ion in sociology that focuses on

the use of com m onsense in decision-m aking, this analysis aim s to show the r itual

foundat ions that allow for com m onsense storytelling to em erge.

References

Atkinson, J.M., and Heritage, J. , eds., 1984. St ructures of Social Act ion: Studies in

Conversat ion Analysis. Cam bridge University Press.

Bennet , W.L., and Feldm an, M., 1981. Reconst ruct ing Realit y in the Court room :

Just ice and Judgm ent in Am erican Culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers

University Press.

Bornstein, B.H., 1999. The ecological validity of j ury sim ulat ions: I s the jury st ill

out? Law and hum an Behavior [ online] , 23(1) , pp. 75-91. Available from :

ht tps: / / doi.org/ 10.1023/ A: 1022326807441 [ Accessed 24 May 2019] .

Bornstein, B.H., and McCabe, S.G., 2005. Jurors of the absurd- the role of

consequent ialit y in j ury sim ulat ion research. Florida State University Law

Review [ online] , 32(2) , p. 443. Available from :

ht tps: / / ir . law.fsu.edu/ lr/ vol32/ iss2/ 7 [ Accessed 24 May 2019] .

Bornstein, B.H. , et al., 2017. Mock juror sam pling issues in j ury sim ulat ion

research: A m eta-analysis. Law and Hum an Behavior [ online] , 41(1) , p. 13.

Available from : ht tps: / / doi.org/ 10.1037/ lhb0000223 [ Accessed 24 May 2019] .

Brown, K.R., 2011. I nteract ion r itual chains and the m obilizat ion of conscient ious

consum ers. Qualitat ive Sociology [ online] , 34(1) , pp. 121-141. Available

from : ht tp: / / dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/ s11133-010-9188-3 [ Accessed 24 May

2019] .



I SSN: 2079-5971 19

Bruner, J. , 1986. Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cam bridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Bruner, J. , 1991. The narrat ive const ruct ion of realit y. Crit ical inquiry [ online] ,

18(1) , pp. 1-21. Available from : ht tps: / / www.j stor.org/ stable/ 1343711

[ Accessed 24 May 2019] .

Cam m iss, S., 2006. “He Goes Off and I Think He Took the Child” : Narrat ive (Re)

Product ion in the Court room . King’s Law Journal, 17(1) , pp. 71-95.

Clark, R.D. I I I , 1999. The effect of m aj orit y defectors and num ber of persuasive

m inority argum ents on m inority influence. Representat ive Research in Social

Psychology , 23, 15-21.

Collins, R., 2004. I nteract ion Ritual Chains. Princeton University Press.

Collins, R., 2014. I nteract ion r itual chains and collect ive effervescence. I n: C. von

Scheve and M. Salm ela, eds., Collect ive Em ot ions. Oxford University Press.

Conley, J.M., and O’Barr , W.M., 2005. Just Words: Law, Language, and Power .

University of Chicago Press.

Conley, R.H., and Conley, J.M., 2009. Stories from the jury room : How jurors use

narrat ive to process evidence. I n: A. Sarat , ed., Studies in Law, Polit ics and

Societ y ( vol. 49) . Bingley: Em erald, pp. 25-56.

Devine, D.J., 2012 . Jury Decision Making: The State of the Science. New York

University Press.

Devine, D.J. , et al. , 2001. Jury decision m aking: 45 years of em pir ical research on

deliberat ing groups. Psychology, public policy, and law [ online] , 7(3) , p. 622.

Available from : ht tps: / / doi.org/ 10.1037/ / 1076-8971.7.3.622 [ Accessed 24

May 2019] .

Devine, D.J., et al. , 2007. Deliberat ion qualit y: A prelim inary exam inat ion in

crim inal j uries. Journal of em pirical legal studies [ online] , 4(2) , pp. 273-303.

Available from : ht tps: / / doi.org/ 10.1111/ j .1740-1461.2007.00089.x [ Accessed

24 May 2019] .

Diam ond S.S., Rose, M.R., and Murphy, B., 2014. Em bedded experts on real j uries:

a delicate balance. William & Mary Law Review [ online] , 55(3) , pp. 885–933.

Available from : ht tps: / / scholarship.law.wm .edu/ wm lr/ vol55/ iss3/ 7/ [ Accessed

24 May 2019] .

Diam ond, S.S., and Rose, M.R., 2018. The Contem porary Am erican Jury. Annual

Review of Law and Social Science [ online] , vol. 14, pp. 239-258. Available

from : ht tps: / / doi.org/ 10.1146/ annurev- lawsocsci-110316-113618 [ Accessed

24 May 2019] .

Diam ond, S.S., et al. , 2003. Juror discussions during civil t rials: Studying an

Arizona innovat ion. Arizona Law Review [ online] , vol. 45, p. 1. Available from :

ht tps: / / scholarship.law.duke.edu/ faculty_scholarship/ 1010/ [ Accessed 24 May

2019] .

Diam ond, S.S., Murphy, B., and Rose, M.R., 2012. The ket t leful of law in real j ury

deliberat ions: Successes, failures, and next steps. Northwestern University

Law Review [ online] , 106(4) , p. 1537. Available from :

ht tps: / / scholarlycom m ons.law.northwestern.edu/ nulr/ vol106/ iss4/ 1/


Diam ond, S.S., Rose, M.R., and Murphy, B., 2006. Revisit ing the unanim ity

requirem ent : The behavior of the non-unanim ous civil j ury. Northwestern

University Law Review , 100(1) , pp. 201-230.



I SSN: 2079-5971 20

DiMaggio, P. , et al., 2018. I nteract ion Ritual Threads: Does IRC Theory Apply

Online?. I n: E.B. Weininger, A. Lareau and O. Lizardo, eds., Ritual, Em ot ion,

Violence: Studies on the Micro-Sociology of Randall Collins. Abingdon:

Rout ledge, pp. 99-142.

Douglas, J.D., 1971. Understanding Everyday Life: Toward the Reconst ruct ion of

Sociological Knowledge. London: Rout ledge and Kegan Paul.

Durkheim , E., (with Cosm an, C., t rans.) , 1996. The Elem entary Form s of Religious

Life. New York: The Free Press. (Originally published in 1912) .

Ekm an, P., 2004. Em ot ions Revealed: Recognizing Faces and Feelings to I m prove

Com m unicat ion and Em ot ional Life. London: Palgrave Macm illan.

Ekm an, P., and Friesen, W.V., 1975. Unm asking the Face: A Guide to Recognizing

Em ot ions from Facial Cues. Englewood Cliffs: Prent ice Hall.

Ewick, P., and Silbey, S.S., 1995. Subversive stories and hegem onic tales: Toward

a sociology of narrat ive. Law and Society Review [ online] , 29(2) , pp. 197-226.

Available from : ht tps: / / www.j stor.org/ stable/ 3054010 [ Accessed 24 May

2019] .

Finkel, N.J., 2009. Com m onsense just ice: Jurors’ not ions of the law. Cam bridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Garfinkel, H., 1967. Studies in Ethnom ethodology . Cam bridge: Polit y.

Gast il, J., Burkhalter, S., and Black, L.W., 2007. Do juries deliberate? A study of

deliberat ion, individual difference, and group m em ber sat isfact ion at a

m unicipal courthouse. Sm all Group Research [ online] , 38(3) , pp. 337-359.

Available from : ht tps: / / doi.org/ 10.1177% 2F1046496407301967 [ Accessed 24

May 2019] .

Gast il, J., et al., 2008. From group m em ber to dem ocrat ic cit izen: How deliberat ing

with fellow jurors reshapes civic at t itudes. Hum an com m unicat ion research

[ online] , 34(1) , pp. 137-169. Available from : ht tps: / / doi.org/ 10.1111/ j .1468-

2958.2007.00316.x [ Accessed 24 May 2019] .

Gibson, D.R., 2016. The Habits of Norm al, I nnocent People, as Const rued by the

North Am erican Juror. Sym bolic I nteract ion [ online] , 39(3) , pp. 397-420.

Available from : ht tps: / / doi.org/ 10.1002/ sym b.242 [ Accessed 24 May 2019] .

Goffm an, E., 1967. I nteract ion Ritual: Essays on Face- to-Face Behavior. New York:

Doubleday.

Goodm an-Delahunty, J., Rossner, M., and Tait , D., 2011. Sim ulat ion and

dissimulat ion in j ury research: Credibilit y in a live m ock t r ial. I n: L. Bartels

and K. Richards, eds., Qualitat ive Crim inology: Stories from the Field. Sydney:

Federat ion Press, pp. 34-44.

Goodwin, C., 1984. 10. Notes on story st ructure and the organizat ion of

part icipat ion. I n: J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage, eds., Structures of Social

Act ion: Studies in Conversat ion Analysis. Cam bridge University Press, pp.

225-246.

Hallet t , T., 2003. Em ot ional feedback and am plificat ion in social interact ion. The

Sociological Quarterly [ online] , 44(4) , pp. 705-726. Available from :

ht tps: / / www.j stor .org/ stable/ 4120729 [ Accessed 24 May 2019] .

Hast ie, R., 2001. Em ot ions in Jurors’ Decisions. Brooklyn Law Review [ online] ,

66(4) , pp. 991–1009. Available from :

ht tps: / / brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/ blr/ vol66/ iss4/ 2/ [ Accessed 24 May

2019] .



I SSN: 2079-5971 21

Hast ie, R., and Pennington, N., 1991. Cognit ive and social processes in decision

m aking. I n: L.B. Resnick, J.M. Levine and S.D. Teasley, eds., Perspect ives on

Socially Shared Cognit ion. Washington, DC: Am erican Psychological

Associat ion, pp. 308-327.

Hast ie, R., Penrod, S., and Pennington, N., 1983. I nside the Jury. Cam bridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Holstein, J.A., 1985. Jurors’ interpretat ions and jury decision m aking. Law and

Hum an Behavior [ online] , 9(1) , p. 83. Available from :

ht tps: / / psycnet .apa.org/ doi/ 10.1007/ BF01044291 [ Accessed 24 May 2019] .

Ivković, S.K., 2015. Ears of the deaf: The theory and reality of lay judges in mixed t r ibunals. Chicago-Kent Law Review [ online] , 90(3) , p. 1031. Available from :

ht tps: / / scholarship.kent law.iit .edu/ cklawreview/ vol90/ iss3/ 11/ [ Accessed 24

May 2019] .

Jim eno-Bulnes, M., and Hans, V.P., 2016. Legal interpreter for the jury: the role of

the Clerk of the Court in Spain. Oñat i Socio- legal Series [ online] , 6(2) .

Available from : ht tp: / / opo.iisj .net / index.php/ osls/ art icle/ view/ 165 [ Accessed

24 May 2019] .

Kam eda, T., 1991. Procedural influence in sm all-group decision m aking:

Deliberat ion style and assigned decision rule. Journal of Personalit y and Social

Psychology [ online] , 61(2) , p. 245. Available from :

ht tps: / / psycnet .apa.org/ doi/ 10.1037/ 0022-3514.61.2.245 [ Accessed 24 May

2019] .

Kerr, N.L., Nerenz, D.R., and Herrick, D., 1979. Role playing and the study of j ury

behavior. Sociological Methods & Research [ online] , 7(3) , pp. 337-355.

Available from : ht tps: / / doi.org/ 10.1177% 2F004912417900700305 [ Accessed

24 May 2019] .

Lerner, G.H., 1992. Assisted storytelling: Deploying shared knowledge as a

pract ical m at ter. Qualitat ive Sociology [ online] , 15(3) , pp. 247-271. Available

from : ht tps: / / doi.org/ 10.1007/ BF00990328 [ Accessed 24 May 2019] .

Lynch, M., and Haney, C., 2015. Em ot ion, authority, and death: (Raced)

negot iat ions in m ock capital jury deliberat ions. Law & Social I nquiry [ online] ,

40(2) , pp. 377-405. Available from : ht tps: / / doi.org/ 10.1111/ lsi.12099


MacCoun, R.J., and Kerr , N.L., 1988. Asym m etric influence in m ock jury

deliberat ion: j urors' bias for leniency. Journal of personalit y and social

psychology [ online] , 54(1) , p. 21. Available from :


2019] .

Manzo, J.F., 1993. Jurors’ narrat ives of personal experience in deliberat ion talk.

Text & Talk: An I nterdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse [ online] ,

13(2) , pp. 267-290. Available from :

ht tps: / / doi.org/ 10.1515/ text .1.1993.13.2.267 [ Accessed 24 May 2019] .

Manzo, J.F., 1994. “You Wouldn’t Take a Seven‐Year‐Old and Ask Him All These

Quest ions” : Jurors’ Use of Pract ical Reasoning in Support ing Their Argum ents.

Law & Social I nquiry [ online] , 19(3) , pp. 639-663. Available from :

ht tp: / / dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/ j .1747-4469.1994.tb00776.x [ Accessed 24 May

2019] .

Manzo, J.F., 1996. Taking turns and taking sides: Opening scenes from two jury

deliberat ions. Social Psychology Quarterly [ online] , 59(2) , pp. 107-125.

Available from : ht tps: / / psycnet .apa.org/ doi/ 10.2307/ 2787046 [ Accessed 24

May 2019] .



I SSN: 2079-5971 22

Marder, N.S., 1987. Gender dynam ics and jury deliberat ions. The Yale Law Journal

[ online] , 96(3) , pp. 593-612. Available from :

ht tps: / / digitalcom m ons.law.yale.edu/ ylj / vol96/ iss3/ 6/ [ Accessed 24 May

2019] .

Maynard, D.W., and Manzo, J.F., 1993. On the sociology of j ust ice: Theoret ical

notes from an actual j ury deliberat ion. Sociological theory [ online] , 11(2) , pp.

171-193. Available from : ht tps: / / doi.org/ 10.2307/ 202141 [ Accessed 24 May

2019] .

Merry, S.E., 1990. Get t ing Just ice and Get t ing Even: Legal Consciousness am ong

Working-Class Am ericans. University of Chicago Press.

Ochs, E., 2011. Narrat ivit y. I n: T. van Dij k, ed., Discourse as St ructure and

Process. London: Sage.

Ochs, E., and Capps, L., 2009. Living Narrat ive: Creat ing Lives in Everyday

Storytelling. Cam bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Pennington, N., and Hast ie, R., 1991. A cognit ive theory of j uror decision m aking:

The story m odel. Cardozo Law Review , 13, p. 519.

Pennington, N., and Hast ie, R., 1992. Explaining the evidence: Tests of t he Story

Model for j uror decision m aking. Journal of personalit y and social psychology

[ online] , 62(2) , p. 189. Available from :


2019] .

Pollet ta, F., and Lee, J., 2006. I s telling stories good for dem ocracy? Rhetoric in

public deliberat ion after 9/ 11. Am erican sociological review [ online] , 71(5) ,

pp. 699-721. Available from :

ht tps: / / doi.org/ 10.1177% 2F000312240607100501 [ Accessed 24 May 2019] .

Pollet ta, F., et al. , 2011. The sociology of storytelling. Annual review of sociology

[ online] , vol. 37, pp. 109-130. Available from :

ht tps: / / doi.org/ 10.1146/ annurev-soc-081309-150106 [ Accessed 24 May

2019] .

Ritchie, S.M., et al. , 2011. Reproducing successful rituals in bad t im es: Exploring

em ot ional interact ions of a new science teacher. Science Educat ion [ online] ,

95(4) , pp. 745-765. Available from : ht tps: / / doi.org/ 10.1002/ sce.20440


Rock, P., 1991. The Social World of an English Crown Court : Witnesses and

Professionals in the Crown Court Cent re at Wood Green. Oxford University

Press.

Rossner, M., 2011. Em ot ions and interact ion r itual: A m icro analysis of restorat ive

just ice. The Brit ish Journal of Crim inology [ online] , 51(1) , pp. 95-119.

Available from : ht tps: / / doi.org/ 10.1093/ bjc/ azq075 [ Accessed 24 May 2019] .

Rossner, M., 2013. Just Em ot ions: Rituals of Restorat ive Just ice. Oxford University

Press.

Rossner, M., and Meher, M., 2014. Em ot ions in r itual theories. I n: J. Turner and J.

Stets, eds., Handbook of the Sociology of Em ot ions ( vol. I I ) . New York:

Springer, pp. 199-220.

Rossner, M., and Tait , D., 2011. Contested em ot ions: adversarial r ituals in non-

adversarial j ust ice procedures. Monash University Law Review , 37, p. 241.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., and Jefferson, G., 1974. A Sim plest System at ics for the

Organizat ion of Turn-Taking for Conversat ion. Washington, DC: Linguist ic

Society of Am erica, pp. 696-735.



I SSN: 2079-5971 23

Sarat , A., and Felst iner, W.L., 1986. Law and st rategy in the divorce lawyer’s office.

Law and Societ y Review [ online] , 20(1) , pp. 93-134. Available from :

ht tps: / / doi.org/ 10.2307/ 3053414 [ Accessed 24 May 2019] .

Sarat , A., ed., 2015. Law and Lies: Decept ion and Truth-Telling in the Am erican

Legal System . Cam bridge University Press.

Schegloff, E.A., 1982. Discourse as an interact ional achievem ent : Som e uses of ‘uh

huh’ and other things that com e between sentences. Analyzing discourse:

Text and talk , 71, p. 93.

Schegloff, E.A., 1987. Analyzing single episodes of interact ion: An exercise in

conversat ion analysis. Social psychology quarter ly [ online] , 50(2) , pp. 101-

114. Available from : ht tps: / / doi.org/ 10.2307/ 2786745 [ Accessed 24 May

2019] .

Schegloff, E.A., 2007. Sequence Organizat ion in I nteract ion: A Prim er in

Conversat ion Analysis (Vol. 1) [ online] . Cam bridge University Press. Available

from : ht tps: / / doi.org/ 10.1017/ CBO9780511791208 [ Accessed 24 May 2019] .

Schutz, A., 1967. The Phenom enology of the Social World. Trans.: G. Walsh and F.

Lehnert . Evanston, I L: Northwestern University Press.

Sprain, L., and Gast il, J., 2013. What does it m ean to deliberate? An interpretat ive

account of j urors’ expressed deliberat ive rules and prem ises. Com m unicat ion

Quarterly [ online] , 61(2) , pp. 151-171. Available from :

ht tps: / / doi.org/ 10.1080/ 01463373.2012.751433 [ Accessed 24 May 2019] .

Sum m ers Effler, E., 2010. Laughing Saints and Righteous Heroes: Em ot ional

Rhythm s in Social Movem ent Groups. University of Chicago Press.

Tait , D., 2001. Popular sovereignty and the just ice process: Towards a com parat ive

m ethodology for observing court room rituals. Contem porary Just ice Review

[ online] , 4(2) , pp. 201-218. Available from :

ht tps: / / is.m uni.cz/ el/ 1423/ podzim 2015/ SOC593/ um / Tait .pdf [ Accessed 24

May 2019] .

Tait , D., 2011. Deliberat ing about terrorism : Prejudice and jury verdicts in a m ock

terrorism t r ial. Aust ralian & New Zealand Journal of Crim inology [ online] ,



Tait , D., and Goodm an-Delahunty, J., eds., 2016. Juries, Science and Popular

Culture in the Age of Terror: The Case of the Sydney Bom ber . New York:

Springer.

Thom as, C., 2010. Are j uries fair? Minist ry of Just ice Research Series [ online] ,

1/ 10. London: Minist ry of Just ice, pp. 1-65. Available from :

ht tps: / / www.just ice.gov.uk/ downloads/ publicat ions/ research-and-

analysis/ m oj - research/ are- juries- fair- research.pdf [ Accessed 24 May 2019] .

Tindale, R.S., et al. , 1990. Asym m etrical social influence in freely interact ing

groups: A test of three m odels. Journal of Personalit y and Social Psychology

[ online] , 58(3) , p. 438. Available from :


2019] .

Vidm ar, N., and Diam ond, S.S., 2001. Jury room rum inat ions on forbidden topics.

Virginia law review [ online] , vol. 87, pp. 1857-1915. Available from :

ht tps: / / scholarship.law.duke.edu/ faculty_scholarship/ 525 [ Accessed 24 May

2019] .

Wellm an, J.K. Jr., Corcoran, K.E., and Stockly‐Meyerdirk, K., 2014. “God is like a

drug…” Explaining interact ion r itual chains in Am erican m egachurches.



I SSN: 2079-5971 24

Sociological Forum [ online] , 29(3) , pp. 650-672. Available from :

ht tps: / / doi.org/ 10.1111/ socf.12108 [ Accessed 24 May 2019] .

Winship, G., 2000. Jury deliberat ion: An observat ion study. Group Analysis [ online] ,



storytelling rituals in jury...

Documents