Abstract

Research typically finds some variability in verdicts across judges versus juries, indicating juries’ added value in legal disputes; that is, juries can and do see cases differently than judges. In an exploratory study, we examine termination of parental rights (TPR) trials, a nontraditional context in which a few states permit juries as well as judges to make decisions. Prior unpublished reports suggest that both judges and juries overwhelmingly terminate rights, but we questioned whether the same pattern would emerge in an area (Texas) with a strong anti-government history. Examining 60 trials in one county, with verdicts on 110 parents, we find that parents used juries infrequently (15% of trials, 12% of parental verdicts) and that terminations dominated verdict outcomes for both judges and juries. An intensively coded subsample of cases revealed few substantive differences in case types, although jury trials last nearly four times as long as bench trials. We conclude that juries are unlikely to provide different outcomes to parents fighting TPR, but we discuss other potential value of jury trials in these cases. Nonetheless, states may need to balance such advantages against cost considerations stemming from longer, more intensive trials.

摘要

研究通常会发现法官与陪审团之间的判决存在一些差异，这表明陪审团在法律纠纷中的附加价值；也就是说，陪审团可以而且确实以不同于法官的方式看待案件。在一项探索性研究中，我们研究了终止父母权利 (TPR) 审判，这是一种非传统背景，少数州允许陪审团和法官做出决定。先前未发表的报告表明，法官和陪审团绝大多数都终止了权利，但我们质疑在具有强烈反政府历史的地区（德克萨斯州）是否会出现相同的模式。检查一个县的 60 项审判，对 110 名父母作出判决，我们发现父母很少使用陪审团（15% 的审判，12% 的父母判决），并且终止对法官和陪审团的判决结果都占主导地位。尽管陪审团审判的持续时间是法庭审判的近四倍，但经过密集编码的案件子样本显示案件类型几乎没有实质性差异。我们得出结论，陪审团不太可能为反对 TPR 的父母提供不同的结果，但我们讨论了陪审团审判在这些案件中的其他潜在价值。尽管如此，各州可能需要在这些优势与因更长、更密集的试验而产生的成本考虑之间取得平衡。