Tracey L. Altman
Bio: Tracey L. Altman is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Peremptory challenge & Selection (genetic algorithm). The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 1 publications receiving 2 citations.
TL;DR: This paper found no association between race and selection for a jury, and only a modest relationship for gender and selection, and the null finding for race masks a pattern of strikes by each party: Whites were likely to be excused by the defense, and African Americans by the state.
Abstract: Some view the peremptory challenge as crucial to a fair jury selection process, whereas for others, it is a tool for invidious race or gender discrimination. Nevertheless, debates utilize little empirical data regarding uses of this challenge. Data are reported from observation of a small number of criminal trials in one, largely biracial southeastern county. In the aggregate, there was no association between race and selection for a jury, and only a modest relationship for gender and selection. However, the null finding for race masks a pattern of strikes by each party: When dismissed, Whites were likely to be excused by the defense, and African Americans by the state. A trial-by-trial analysis showed that when disparities between venire and jury composition existed, the direction usually pointed to overrepresentation of African Americans and women on juries. Despite limited generalizability, the data suggest the need for a more informed debate about the peremptory challenge's use in modern criminal trials.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examine five pieces of the civil information architecture (i.e., evidence tampering rules, automatic disclosure requirements, work product doctrine, peremptory challenge law, and bans on juror testimony) and fit these five doctrines into a creative rule typology, one built on the frame of (in)valid (mis)information.
Abstract: At the core of every lawsuit is a mix of information — revealing documents that chronicle a party’s malfeasance, guarded memos that outline a lawyer’s trial strategy, fading memories that recall a jury’s key mistakes. Yet the law’s system for managing that information is still poorly understood. This Article makes new and better sense of that system. It begins with an original examination of five pieces of our civil information architecture — evidence tampering rules, automatic disclosure requirements, work product doctrine, peremptory challenge law, and bans on juror testimony — and compiles a novel study of how those doctrines intersect and overlap. It then fits these five doctrines into a creative rule typology, one built on the frame of “(in)valid (mis)information.” This typology charts our system’s most basic commitments — to accuracy, to adversarialism, and to procedural equality. But it also raises a critical question about the space between what our rules now require and what legal actors actually do. To help answer that question, this Article reaches out to an untapped social-science discipline: the rich and instructive field of Information Behavior (IB). This Article uses IB to shed new light on how our information rules function and where they still may fail. It also offers fresh and focused insight on the nature of information in civil litigation — from before a lawsuit opens until well after it ends.