평결불능 배심단의 특성: 모의배심재판 실험연구

Deliberation of mock juries that fail to reach a unanimous verdict was qualitatively analysed in the present study to evaluate possible reasons for the failure. Ten juries of 8 persons were assigned to each of eight experimental conditions created by manipulating two independent variables. The first independent variable was Evidence State with four levels; Close (evidences for and against the defendant are equally strong), Exonerating (evidences for the defendant are strong), Incriminating (evidences against the defendant are strong),and Vague (evidences for and against the defendant are equally weak). The second independent variable was Decision Rule with two levels; Unanimity and Simple Majority. The juries that failed to reach a unanimous verdict (hung juries)deliberated longer and more vigorously than did the juries reaching a unanimous verdict. The deliberation of hung juries was generally more evidence-driven and more closely reflected the objective state of the evidence than that of the juries rendering a unanimous verdict was. Jurors in hung juries perceived more conflict,more pressure for conformity and lower persuasiveness of the members during their deliberation compared to the jurors in juries rendering a verdict. However, jurors of minority opinions in hung juries were not different from those of majority opinions in comprehension of trial evidences, deliberation participation,and satisfaction with jury performance. Consistent with the results from research on hung juries in other countries, current data suggest that a jury may fail to reach a unanimous verdict not because some of the members are irrational but because the trial evidence is shallow and weak. Therefore, a hung jury is more likely to be an indication of poor performances of judges and attorneys during the trial than an indication of poor composition of jurors and "bad apples" in the jury.