In Defense of Diversity: The Benefits of Jury Diversity for Deliberation and Fact-finding

            The Supreme Court case of Batson v. Kentucky held that systemic discrimination in jury selection violates not only the Fourteenth Amendment’s demand for equal protection, but also the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of an impartial jury. While the equal protection implications of discriminatory jury selection may be easy to understand (conviction rates for black defendants rise disproportionately in the absence of black jurors, for instance), it may not be immediately obvious why the Sixth Amendment also generally prohibits systemic discrimination in jury selection. The answer lies in the impact of race and gender diversity on group dynamics.

Studies have shown that a group’s composition can and does affect its dynamics and decision-making. In fact, more diverse groups in studies provide better solutions to problems compared to non-diverse groups. Racial minorities can and do readily provide different perspectives, which boosts effective group problem-solving. A diversity of life experiences and perspectives leads to more creative thinking and problem-solving, and helps to reduce the tendency of individuals and groups to “stick” on the first solution to a problem that presents itself. Although diversity has also been shown in some studies to hinder group cohesion, when it comes to juries, group cohesion matters far less than the group’s ability to process information and answer the problem at hand – that is, the question of guilt or liability.

However, a 2006 study into the impact of racial composition on jury deliberations indicates that the benefits of diversity do not stop at providing a diversity of perspectives: white jurors on mock juries that included black participants were less likely to have a pre-deliberation judgment of a defendant’s guilt, deliberated longer, brought up more case facts during deliberation, and were more accurate in recalling case facts during deliberation. White jurors in diverse juries were also more receptive to discussion about the potential impact of racism on the case.

In group decision-making settings, women ask different types of questions than men; studies have even shown that women deliberate differently than men in the jury room and show more flexibility in their beliefs. Female jurors also perceive credibility differently: focusing on the credibility of the judge, one study found that female jurors viewed male and female judges as equally credible, while male jurors found female judges less credible than male judges. Including people in the jury with different ways of assessing credibility, and different methods of factfinding for solving problems, creates a similar diversity of perspectives as racial diversity, and promotes better group problem-solving.

Gender-diverse juries invite more deliberation, and female jurors are more flexible in their beliefs than male jurors, which may prompt other jurors to reconsider their own preconceived or closely-held beliefs about the case. Furthermore, racially diverse juries pay more attention to the case, and remember evidence more accurately than do non-diverse juries. The mere presence of a racially diverse juror, in fact, appears to reduce the impact of racial bias on deliberations and decisions, and makes jurors more receptive to discussing the impact of bias on the facts of the case. Other things being equal, diverse juries make better factfinders by bringing to the table both different perspectives and different means of interpreting evidence. The decision-making benefits of diversity are one reason that the Sixth Amendment demand for impartial juries is best served by prohibiting systemic discrimination.