Jury deliberation: An observation study.

This is a repository copy of Jury deliberation: An observation study..

White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/219/

Article:

Winship, G. (2000) Jury deliberation: An observation study. Group Analysis, 33 (4). pp. 547-557. ISSN 0533-3164

https://doi.org/10.1177/05333160022077452

[email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Reuse

Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version - refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher’s website.

Takedown

If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by

Ju r y de libe r a t ion : a n obse r v a t ion st u dy

Gar y Winship ( 2000) Gr oup Analysis, 33, 4: 547- 557

I n t his ar t icle, t he w ay t hat t he j ury w or ks is consider ed fr om a gr oup- analyt ic per spect ive. Obser vat ional fieldw or k of sim ulat ed j ur y deliber at ions is present ed. The dat a w as gat her ed fr om a j oint funded Hom e Office and Law Com m ission pr oj ect at t he Socio- Legal St udies Cent r e, Oxfor d in 1995. I nfer ences are dr aw n fr om t he obser vat ions and t he unconscious gr oup pr ocesses ar e consider ed. The efficacy of t he j ur y pr ocess is discussed.

Key w or ds: j ur y, obser vat ion, unconscious pr ocess

I n st udying t he hist or y of t he j ur y, from t he adopt ion of dem ocr at ic t r ials in pr e-Solon At hens ( c. 500 BC) t hr ough t o pr esent - day j ur y syst em , t he ascendancy. and t he dem ise of t he j ur y syst em appear s t o be a concom it ant of dem ocr at ically or der ed societ ies ( Winship, 1997) . That is t o say, t he j ur y syst em hist or ically has em er ged w her e t her e has been a shift aw ay fr om despot ic and oligar chical gover nance t o m or e dem ocr at ically inclined polit ies. The j ur y appear s t o be an em blem of a m at uring public psyche w here t he r esponsibilit y for m aking st r ingent decisions is shar ed am ong t he people, by t he people and for t he people as Ar ist ot le ( in Polit ics, 1905) ur ged.

The lit er at ur e about j ur y r esear ch m ainly encom passes 9ut com e par adigm s t hat ar e of a behaviour al, sociological and gr oup psycho- m et ric per spect ive ( e.g. St r ot beck and Hook, 1961; Mills and Kessler , 1973; Zeisel and Diam ond, 1978; Bar on et al., 1992) . Ther e is a dear t h of r esear ch int o t he em ot ionalit y of t he j ur y pr ocess and, as far as I can see, no psychoanalyt ic or gr oup- analyt ic account s. I n t his paper I car r y for w ar d a pr evious lit er at ur e r eview

548

( Winship, 1997) and pr esent som e pr elim inar y for m ulat ions based on obser vat ions I under t ook of m ock j ur y deliber at ions. I t is m y hope t hat t hese findings m ay be t he basis for fut ur e analyt ic enquir y and r esear ch int o w hat m ust be a fecund ar ea for gr oup analysis in as m uch as social j ust ice is a feat ur e of gr oup t her apy.

A cent r al t enet of m y br ief exegesis her e is t hat t he field of psychoanalysis and gr oup analysis, vis- a- vis levels of unconscious pr im it iv e pr ocess has m uch t o offer in helping us under st and t he hit her t o enigm at ic dynam ics of t he j ur y pr ocess. I say pr im it ive pr ocess because t he j ur y is confr ont ed w it h pr ocessing and ar bit r at ing over t he br eakdow n of social r est r aint w here pr im it ive dr ives m ay be m anifest . Fr om a group- analyt ic per spect ive, t he j ur y w ould appear t o be a unique m ini- lab for analysis of such pr im it ive pr ocess beyond t he clinical set t ing.

com plex issues t hat m ay im pinge upon t he evidence t hat t he j ur y needs t o pr ocess. The Sim pson t r ial is far

fr om except ional; r at her w e m ight see it as an am plificat ion of t he m yr iad of per sonal, social and cult ur al t ensions t hat for m in t he cr ucible of t he j ury. There ar e t her efor e t ensions bot h fr om w it hin - t he dynam ics of t he cour t r oom and t he case at hand - and also w it hout - t he pr essur e of public opinion t hat perm eat es w hat w e m ight t hink of as t he j ur y m at r ix.

How ever , m any of t hese dynam ics have r em ained inaccessible t o r eal- t im e r esear ch because t he law im poses lim it s on j ur or s t alking about t heir exper iences. Ther efor e m ost of t he r esear ch under t aken in t he field is conduct ed in sim ulat ed set t ings and it is fr om such a r esearch set t ing t hat I pr esent m y findings.

Ju r y D e libe r a t ion - A Fie ld w or k Ob se r v a t ion St u dy

A r esear ch pr oj ect j oint ly funded by t he Hom e Office and t he Law Com m ission, led by Sue Lloyd Bost ock, w as car r ied out in t he Socio- Legal St udies cent r e in Ox for d in 1995. This w as t he fir st

549

lar ge- scale j ur y r esear ch st udy in t he UK since t he 1970s. Ther e w er e 24 m ock t r ials and I car r ied out a non- par t icipant obser vat ion pr ocedur e in four of t he t r ials. Volunt eer s w er e r ecr uit ed via local paper s in Oxfor dshir e and w er e gat her ed int o gr oups of t w elve and invit ed along t o t he st udy cent r e by let t er . Each sam ple gr oup of j ur or s w as asked t o ar r ive at t he sam e t im e. They w er e t hen usher ed int o a lar ge r oom w it h a t elevision. A r esear cher fr om t he cent r e int r oduced t he pr oj ect as: 'a st udy t o see how j ur or s ar r ive at t heir decision'. He t hen explained t hat t hey w er e t o see a m ock t r ial on video, w it h act or s playing r oles based on r eal cases, and t hat aft er w ar ds t hey w ould be asked t o deliberat e on t he ver dict . Dur ing pr oceedings t he j ur or s w er e asked t o com plet e t w o quest ionnair es. The deliber at ions w er e audio- r ecor ded.

m y obser vat ion as inext r icably linked t o t he net w or k of social r elat ions being st udied - t hat is t o say, obser vat ion via ex per ient ial assim ilat ion or pr oj ect ive ident ificat ion. I w ill now pr esent one of t he four obser vat ions.

550

Obse r v a t ion

Four t h obser vat ion. The j ur y ( t en w om en, t w o m en) w as show n a video of a t r ial w her e t he defendant had pleaded not guilt y t o st abbing Mr R. The defendant claim ed it w as self- defence. He said he had been w or k ing on his car and t hen had gone ar ound t o 'have it out ' w it h t he Mr R over a disput e. When Mr R cam e out of his house he w as allegedly br andishing a flick- knife. The defendant said he happened t o have a scr ew dr iver in his pocket , so he defended him self.

The video show ed w it ness exam inat ions and cr oss- exam inat ions w it h all t he key player s. The final pr osecut ion and defence cases w er e pr esent ed befor e t he j udge sum m ed up. The v ideo w as engaging indeed; t he act or s looked int o t he cam er a so t her e w as a feeling cr eat ed of being dr aw n int o t he dr am a. As I obser ved t he j ur or s w at ching t he video t hey looked m ost absor bed, som et im es m aking not es. All appear ed t o be list ening at t ent ively and in silence. Ther e w as a palpable air of som br e applicat ion t o t heir t ask of list ening. Aft er t he t r ial w as finished t he j ur y gat her ed ar ound t he t able. The r esear cher cam e back int o t he r oom and gav e out a quest ionnair e. The quest ionnair e asked each j ur or if t hey had m ade up t heir m ind or w het her t hey w er e uncer t ain ( t his w as an anonym ous enquir y t hat w as repeat ed at t he end t he deliber at ions) . Aft er t his t he r esear cher collect ed t he quest ionnair es and said: 'You have 45 m inut es t o ar r ive at a decision, w e nor m ally r equir e a 10: 2 ver dict . Jur ies oft en elect a for eper son.' He t hen left t he r oom . I w as sit t ing on t he out side of t he gr oup and was int r oduced as som eone w ho w as t her e sim ply t o obser ve pr oceedings and m onit or t he audio

r ecor der .

I n t he four t h obser vat ion at fir st t her e w as a br ief silence of 15 seconds or so t hen som eone st ar t ed pour ing out dr inks of squash from a j ug t hat w as in t he m iddle of t he t able and ask ed people near by if t hey w ant ed a glass. Sever al conver sat ions began t aking place sim ult aneously as t he fir st glasses of squash w er e dr unk. Ther e w as hubbub and excit em ent w it hin t w o m inut es. Then som eone said out loud above t he noise: 'Let 's see w hat happens if w e v ot e now ', and pr oposed a show of hands. Seven vot ed 'not guilt y ' ( six fem ale and one m ale) , one ( m ale) was unsur e and t he r em aining four ( fem ales) vot ed 'guilt y'. Ther e follow ed a discussion about t he evidence pr esent ed by t he bar r ist er s about t he st abbing. Sever al m em ber s dem onst r at ed w it h t hr ust ing m ot ions how t he fight m ight hav e happened and t he quest ion of self- defence

551

her m ind. A Scandinav ian w om an, w ho had v ot ed 'not guilt y ', said t hat she believ ed t hat t he accused had done t he st abbing but t her e w as not enough evidence t o find him guilt y. Anot her w om an asked; 'What do t he m en t hink? They ar e alw ays w or king w it h t ools.' One of t he m en said t hat it w as Sunday aft er noon so t he defendant had pr obably been dr inking. Ther e w as a r at her light - hear t ed discussion about Sunday s and m en and husbands, and at t his point som e of t he j ur or s divulged som e per sonal det ails about how t hey spend t heir Sundays.

Ther e w er e a few m or e int er changes follow ed by a consider ed and m or e ser ious dialogue for t he next 15 m inut es or so, in w hich t he j uror s gr appled w it h t he act of spont aneous violence ver sus m easur ed violence. Mem ber s appear ed t o be t r ying t o t hink fr om inside, t r ying t o put t hem selves in t he place of t he player s in t he t r ial - how t hey w ould or w ould not act spont aneously t hem selves given sim ilar sit uat ions. Wor ds w er e chosen car efully, debat e w as m easur ed alt hough t her e w er e m om ent s of ear nest ness and at t em pt s at per suading ot her s t o a point of view . The char act er s w er e analysed, for inst ance one w om an said: 'The accuser w as sm ug, he sm iled all t he w ay t hr ough his t est im ony.' The defendant w as gener ally m or e est eem ed by ever yone. Dur ing t his t im e t her e w as no t alking over each ot her . Each j ur or spoke. Ther e w as anot her show of hands; t he only posit ion change w as t hat t he m ale w ho had been unsur e now vot ed 'not guilt y' ( 8 'not guilt y', 4 'guilt y') . A w om an com m ent ed t hat it w as t he y ounger people w ho w er e vot ing for a 'guilt y' v er dict . This indeed w as an ast ut e obser vat ion and w as follow ed by a fr agm ent at ion again as t he discussion sub- gr ouped int o t hr ee pair ings and t w o t hr eesom es. This last ed for five m inut es unt il t he r esear cher cam e int o t he r oom on t he m ar k of 45 m inut es. He asked if t hey had r eached a decision and w as t old by sever al j ur or s t hat t hey w er e st ill split . The gr oup filed out of t he r oom and sever al of t he gr oup m em ber s cont inued t o conver se w it h each ot her .

552

Obse r v a t ion D iscu ssion

I t is a m et hodological issue as t o how best t o pr ocess and dr aw infer ences fr om t he above obser vat ional m at er ial. Each of t he four obser vat ions w as unique, t hough a t hem at ical or dialogical analysis com paring all t he obser vat ions m ay locat e som e discer nible pat t er ns com m on t o each of t he j ur ies. How ever , t he analysis of each one on it s ow n m er it s is t he im plied st ar t point . I deally t his m ight be best done in a gr oup for um , w it h ex t er nal and independent w it nesses t o exam ine t he dat a and t hen dr aw infer ences, in m uch t he sam e w ay t hat Bick ( 1964) r ecom m ends a collabor at ive effor t in pr ocessing m at er ial fr om infant obser vat ions in a sem inar set t ing. I n t he absence of collabor at ive dat a at t his st age I w ill pr esent som e of m y ow n r esponses. ( Her e, t he r eader m ay w ish t o st op and m ake a not e of t heir ow n r esponses t o t he dat a set above befor e r eading m ine below .)

so he w ould ; , have been dr inking.' I n t his w ay t he j ur y w as const r uct ing a nar r at ive of it s ow n, a com m only not ed m odus oper andi, not ed by Penningt on ( 1981) . Likew ise, Diam ond and Casper not ed t he speculat ive nat ur e of t he j ur y discussion w hen t hey concluded t hat t he gr oup ver dict w as a pr oduct of pr efer ences, expect at ions, infer ences and st or ies t hat individual j ur or s br ought t o t he deliber at ions. They concluded, how ev er , t hat 't he algor it hm s t hat pr oduce t his t r ansfor m at ion ar e not w ell under st ood' ( 1992: 559) .

I suggest t hat t he t r ansfor m at ion of t he st or y of t he case of Mr R occur r ed as a r esult of ident ificat ion w hereby t he discussion led int o a dom ain w hich becam e incr easingly per sonalized by one or m or e of t he j ur or s. The em ot ional expr ession becam e m or e char ged w hen t he issues becam e per sonalized, t hat is 10 say w hen t he j ur or s put t hem selves in t he posit ion of t he key pr ot agonist s, for inst ance in t he r e- enact m ent s of t he st abbing. This em ot ionally char ged ident ificat ion w as par t icular ly not iceable in Obser vat ion Tw o, w hen

553

t he j ur y w as deliber at ing over a case of sexual assault . At such t im es, w hen t he m at er ial becam e subj ect t o ident ificat ion, t he decibel level of t he discussion w ould incr ease. Ther e w as a t endency w it hin t he gr oup for one or m ore people t o ident ify w it h eit her t he defendant or t he plaint iff; j ur or s w ould com m only use st at em ent s like; 'I f t hat w er e m e' or 'I w ould do such and such'. I n t he four t h obser vat ion, t he ident ificat ion w it h t he case w as

clear ly r epr esent ed w hen sever al people w er e t hr ust ing im aginary knives int o t hin air or at each ot her . This seem ed t o be a case of pr oj ect iv e ident ificat ion or m ir r or ing, w her eby t he dynam ics of t he case cam e alive in t he j ur y. I had pr eviously not ed t his process of ident ificat ion w hen I exam ined t he j ur or s' r esponses t o t he t r ial of John Hinkley, w ho shot Pr esident Reagan. Hinkley had developed a fixat ion for t he young film - st ar Jodie Fost er and in shoot ing Reagan he w as m im icking t he char act er Rober t De Niro played in t he film Taxi Drivel: I n t he t r ial t he j ur y w as show n t he film , hear d psychiat r ic t est im onials and hear d t he bizar r e let t er s t hat Hinkley had sent t o Jodie Fost er . Jur or Nat helea Br ow n r epor t ed aft er w ar ds ( in t he US t her e ar e less st r ingent law s about j ur or s t alk ing about t heir exper iences) t hat she her self had felt m ad dur ing t he t r ial; 'I felt I w as on t he br ink of insanit y going t hr ough all t his, you know ' ( cit ed in Hans and Vidm ar , 1986: 183) .

The gr oup- analyt ic t em plat e for t his process of ident ificat ion, . . w her eby t he j ur or and t he j ur y- as- a- w hole becom e a r e- enact m ent of t he int ernal w or ld of t he accused, is exem plified in Klein's ( 1963) except ional paper 'On t he Orest eia'. Accor ding t o Gr eek m yt h, Or est es is brought befor e t he At henian j ur y conv ened by At hene, char ged w it h t he m ur der of his m ot her . Aft er hearing t he evidence t he j ur y vot e, but ar e split exact ly. At hene uses her cast ing vot e t o acquit Or est es. The gor gon- like 'fur ies', w ho have t or t ur ed Or est es w it h psychot ic- like hallucinat ions since t he m ur der , ar e

m ot her ( she has killed Or est es' fat her , Agam em non) . The j ur y vot e in t he t r ial enact s t he split of Or est es'

554

int er nal obj ect s, w hich ar e spilt at t he par anoid schizoid level. The j ur y becom es a m ir r or of Or est es' int er nal dialogue.

Th e Good En ou gh Ju r y ?

Pr oj ect ive ident ificat ion m ay account for t he w ay t he j ur y becom es m or e em br oiled t han it or dinar ily w ould in t ense and em ot ive discussion. The j ur y is t he r ecipient of t he polem ics of opinion in t he cour t - r oom . I n silence, w it h no r ecour se t o challenge or quest ion, t he j ur y m at r ix becom es a r eser voir w hich absor bs t he m ult iplicit y of pr oj ect ions in t he cour t r oom . The w ay t hat t he j ur y ident ifies w it h t he case at hand, becom ing absor bed in t he dynam ics of t he case, m ight be not only legit im at e but necessar y. We m ight w e t hink of pr oj ect ive ident ificat ion as m ediat ing under st anding and

com m unicat ion r at her t han im peding it . I n t his w ay, t hr ough a degr ee of em ot ional engagem ent , t he j ur or s are able t o exam ine t he evidence w it h a dept h t hat goes beyond logic and r at ionalit y.

How ever , t he ar gum ent s against t he capacit y of t he j ur y t o pr ocess evidence logically by get t ing em ot ional ent angled have r at her led t o t he j ur y being under fir e ( Findlay and Duff, 1988) . Ther e have been a num ber of high- pr ofile t r avest ies of j ust ice, par t icular ly so in cases w her e t he j ur y has becom e a r egr essive and punit ive ancilla of public opinion. The t r ial of child defendant s for t he m ur der Jam ie Bulger in t he UK is a case in point . Sever al m ont hs befor e t he t w o accused boys w er e br ought for t r ial, t he gener al behaviour of t he public and t he pr ess w as ak in t o t hat of a lynch m ob. The accused w er e descr ibed as 'evil' befor e any guilt w as pr oven. I t w ould have been im possible for any j ur or t o r em ain r em oved fr om t he m edia cover age and social influence in t he case. Ther e has r ecent ly been a call fr om a Eur opean Com m ission for Hum an Right s for a r e- t r ial, on t he gr ounds t hat t he fir st t r ial w as unfair . We have also seen t he fallibilit y of t he j ur y under t he w eight of public opinion, w it h sever al r ecent r et r ials such as t he 'Birm ingham Six ' in t he UK, and t he m iscar r iage of j ust ice in t he t r ial of Rodney King in Los Angeles. The r acial pr ej udice appar ent in t he j ur y v er dict of t he Rodney King t r ial ev en pr om pt ed t he US Pr esident at t he t im e and lat er a UK high cour t j udge t o say t hey could not see how t he j ur y r eached it s ver dict ( Cr ow t her , 1992) . I nfluent ial figur es such as Br ian Clapham ( 1991) believe t hat t he j ur y ought t o be abandoned in favour of a syst em w her e decisions ar e m ade by

555

j udges w ho, he consider s, ar e bet t er infor m ed about j ur ispr udence and ar e t her efor e m or e able t o pr ocess legal dat a. He also cit es t he sheer ex pense t o t he public purse of t he pr esent j ur y syst em . This m ay be a sound econom ic ar gum ent but t hese at t acks r epr esent a r at her w or r ying assault on collect ivism and fait h in gr oup dem ocr acy.

because m any heads ar e bet t er t han one w her e t he st r ingency of decision- m aking is shar ed in a gr oup t hat is . sizeable enough t o allow anonym it y w her e it is st ill possible t o m aint ain a per sonal opinion against a m aj or it y w hich is not so num er ically over w helm ing ( refer ence, t he film Tw elve Angr y Men st ar r ing Henr y Fonda) . The healt hy w holeness of t he gr oup holds t he group t oget her as it is faced w it h high levels of em ot ional engagem ent . Over all, fr om obser vat ions, I felt t hat t her e w as som et hing r eassur ing about t he capacit ies of t he m ock j ur ies t o t ak e on a difficult t ask w it h a ser ious int er est in sear ching out t he t r ut h. Ther e w er e at t acks on t hinking and flight s int o chaos, but t he j ur y show ed t hat it could hold firm t o it s t ask. Even w her e int er est dw indled and confusion r eigned, t he collabor at ive effor t s r eigned t r ue. I had a feeling t hat I w as w it nessing cit izenship cogit at ing

t ow ar ds it s civilizing best .

The current argum ent t hat t his t ask of deliberat ion should be ., assigned t o individual m agist r at es w ould be a denial of t he necessit y for social connect edness in est ablishing t he m or al and social w ay of t hings. The com m andeer ing of people t o t he j ur y is per haps a st r engt h of t he pr ocess. Ar guably, t he r eluct ant j ur or , pulled off t he st r eet is t he best j ur or for t his unsavour y j ob. The j ur y ver dict is t r em endously difficult . I t is an eit her / or sit uat ion. The sear ch for a ver dict , t hen, ar guably involves t he j ur y operat ing at a pr im it ive level of split t ing, an int rapsy chic pr ocess, t hat m ay be said t o r eenact t he ear ly exper ience of differ ent iat ion bet w een t he good and t he bad. Jur ies r e- enact t he split in or der t o r each a decision about t r ut h. I suggest t hat t he j ur y is a gr oup r e- enact m ent of a pr im ar y pr ocess as inclined t o int egr at ive behaviour as it is t o r egr essive behaviour , w her e par anoid schizoid split t ing is alm ost funct ional in ident ifying t r ut h and unt r ut h.

Theor ies aside, at t he end of t he day it m ay be a quest ion of fait h; does one subj ect ively believe t he j ur y is good enough? Do w e believe it has t he capacit y t o funct ion as a t ask gr oup and not exist at t he level of a

556

basic assum pt ion gr oup? When w e quest ion t he capacit y of t he j ur y w e ar e, by im plicat ion, saying som et hing about societ y- as- w hole. I w ould dr aw t he r eader 's at t ent ion her e t o Alfor d's ( 1990) debat e about a KleinianlBionian account of gr oups w her e he t akes a count er - posit ion t o Rust in's ( 1990) concept ualizat ion of t he possibilit y of benign social const r uct ion. Rust in's ( 1990) concept of t he innat e hum an capacit y for r epar at ion and m or alit y is clear ly r esonant w it h Foulkes's not ion about t he healt hy w holeness of t he gr oup.

Re fe r e n ce s

Alfor d, F. ( 1990) Repar at ion and civilizat ion. A Kleinian account of t he lar ge gr oup.

Fr ee Associat ions, 19: 7- 30.

Ar ist ot le ( 1905) Polit ics. Oxfor d: Oxfor d Univer sit y Pr ess. ,-

Bar on, R.S., Ker r , N.L. and Miller , N. ( 1992) Gr oup Pr ocess, Gr oup Decision, Gr oup

Act ion. Buckingham : Open Univer sit y Pr ess.

Bick, E. ( 1964) 'Not es on t he t echnique of infant obser vat ion'. I nt er nat ional Jour nal

of Psycho- Analysis, 45: 558- 556.

Clapham , B. ( 1991) 'I s our Jur y Syst em at Risk?' Just ice of t he Peace 155( 39) : 615- 16.

Cr ow t her , E. ( 1992) 'Elim inat ing Pr ej udice fr om t he Jur y Room ', Just ice of t he

Peace 156( 24) : 381- 3.

Diam ond, S.S. and Casper , J.D. ( 1992) 'Blindfolding t he Jur y t o Ver dict Consequences', Law and Societ y Review 26( 3) : 513- 63.

Findlay, M. and Duff, P. ( 1988) The Jur y Under At t ack. London. But t er w or t hs. Hans, V.P. and Vidm ar , N. ( 1986) Judging t he Jur y. New Yor k: Plenum Pr ess.

Klein. M ( 1963) 'Som e Reflect ions on The Or est eia', in her Envy and Gr at it ude and

Ot her Wor ks 1946- 1963. London: Vir ago Pr ess, 1988.

Mills, L.R. and Kessler , J.B. ( 1973) 'Six- Mem ber and Tw elve- Mem ber Jur ies: An

557

Em pir ical St udy of Tr ial Result s’, Univer sit y of Michigan Jour nal of Law

Refor m s Spr ing: 671–734.

Penningt on, N. ( 1981) ‘Jur or Decision Making Models: The Gener alizat ion Gap’,

Psychological Bullet in 89: 246–87.

Rust in, M. ( 1989) ‘Obser ving I nfant s: r eflect ions on m et hod’. Chapt er in: Closely

Obser ved I nfant s. Ed. Miller , L., Rust in, M., Rust in, M.R., Shut t lew or t h, J. ( pp.

52–75) London: Duckw or t h.

Rust in, M. ( 1990) The Good Societ y and t he I nner Wor ld. London: Ver so.

St ew ar t , J., Kendall, E. and Coot e, A. ( 1994) Cit izens Jur ies. London: I nst it ut e for Public Policy Resear ch.

St r ot beck, F.L. ( 1962) ‘Social Pr ocess, t he Law and Jur y Funct ioning’, in ?. Evan ( ed.) Law and Sociology 144.

St r ot beck, F.L. and Hook, L.H. ( 1961) ‘The Social Dim ensions of a 12- Man Jur y and Table’, Sociom et r y 24: 397.

Winship, G. ( 1995) ‘Psychoanalyt ic Gr oup Obser vat ion of Childr en in t he Set t ing of a Nur ser y – A Met hodological Enquir y’, MA Disser t at ion, London: Tavist ock.

Winship, G. ( 1997) ‘Just ice as an I nher ent Char act er ist ic of Group Dynam ics?’ Fr ee

Associat ions 7( 1, 41) : 64–80.