Diverging Decisions? A Comparison of Jury Verdict Procedures

Courts have the capacity to structure juries' decision making through the use of general verdicts with answers to written questions, special verdicts, and, in some countries, the requirement that juries provide reasons for their verdicts. Little empirical research has explored the impact of special verdicts or a reasoning requirement on juror decision making in comparison to other verdict procedures. In Experiment 1, mock jurors (<i>N</i> = 267) read a summary detailing a case of alleged defamation of a White or Black plaintiff and rendered a verdict (general verdict vs. special verdict vs. two variations of a general verdict procedure with a reasoning requirement). In Experiment 2, mock jurors (<i>N</i> = 292) heard a mock trial while viewing photos of a White or Latinx plaintiff and rendered a verdict (general verdict vs. special verdict with a reasoning requirement) after deliberating as a group. In Experiments 1 and 2, mock jurors who rendered a verdict using a general verdict form were more likely to find for the plaintiff compared to those using a special verdict form (Experiment 1) or a modified special verdict form with reason-giving (Experiment 2).