Comparing Jury Selection Procedures with Biased Populations

Abstract

We use simulations to compare two jury selection procedures from a game theory perspective. In line with previous work, each juror is represented by a conviction probability that captures the probability they vote to convict the defendant. In Struck, a panel of conviction probabilities are presented to the prosecution and defense, who can exercise their challenges after seeing the whole panel. In Strike and Replace, these probabilities are presented one by one, with the parties being forced to use their challenges without knowing the identity of future jurors. Our analysis is focused on minority representation and decision making welfare in two setups that have real world implications. Firstly, we consider a scenario where the majority group is biased in favor of conviction of the defendant, regardless of the case. Then, we consider a situation where both the majority and minority are biased in opposing directions. From these setups, we find that compared to Struck, Strike and Replace is able to achieve better minority representation without sacrificing decision making welfare.