(1980). Lynne ForsterLee & Irwin A. Horowitz, The Effects of Jury-Aid Innovations on Juror 86 Judicature 184 (2003). Performance in Complex Civil Trials, Lynne ForsterLee & Irwin A. Horowitz, 11 Enhancing Juror Competence in a Complex Trial, Applied Cognitive Psychol. 305 (1997). Lynne ForsterLee et al., Effects of Notetaking on Verdicts and Evidence Processing in a Civil 18 Law & Hum. Behav. 567 (1994). Trial, Lynne ForsterLee et al., Juror Competence in Civil Trials: Effects of Preinstruction and 78 J. Applied Psychol. 14 (1993). Evidence Technicality, Paula L. Hannaford et al., The Timing of Opinion Formation by Jurors in Civil Cases: An 67 Tenn. L. Rev. 627, 650 (2000). Empirical Examination, Paula L. Hannaford et al., Permitting Jury Discussions During Trial: Impact of the Arizona 24 Law & Hum.Behav. 359 (2000). Reform, Valerie P. Hans, 13 Roger Williams U. L. Empowering the Active Jury: A Genuine Tort Reform, Rev. 39 (2008). Valerie P. Hans, 16 J.L. & Pol’y 19 (2007). Judges, Juries, and Scientific Evidence, Valerie P. Hans, 87 Va. L. Rev. 1917 Inside the Black Box: Comment on Diamond and Vidmar, (2001). Valerie P. Hans & Stephanie Albertson, 78 Notre Empirical Research and Civil Jury Reform, Dame L. Rev. 1497 (2003). Valerie P. Hans et al., The Arizona Jury Reform Permitting Civil Jury Discussions: The 32 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 349 (1999). Views of Trial Participants, Judges, and Jurors, Larry Heuer & Steven Penrod, Trial Complexity: A Field Investigation of Its Meaning and Its 18 Law & Hum. Behav. 29 (1994). Effects, Larry Heuer & Steven Penrod, Juror Notetaking and Question Asking During Trials: A National 18 Law & Hum. Behav. 121 (1994). Field Experiment, Larry Heuer & Steven D. Penrod, Instructing Jurors: A Field Experiment with Written and
(1980). Lynne ForsterLee & Irwin A. Horowitz, The Effects of Jury-Aid Innovations on Juror Performance in Complex Civil Trials, 86 Judicature 184 (2003). Lynne ForsterLee & Irwin A. Horowitz, Enhancing Juror Competence in a Complex Trial, 11 Applied Cognitive Psychol. 305 (1997). Lynne ForsterLee et al., Effects of Notetaking on Verdicts and Evidence Processing in a Civil Trial, 18 Law & Hum. Behav. 567 (1994). Lynne ForsterLee et al., Juror Competence in Civil Trials: Effects of Preinstruction and Evidence Technicality, 78 J. Applied Psychol. 14 (1993). Paula L. Hannaford et al., The Timing of Opinion Formation by Jurors in Civil Cases: An Empirical Examination, 67 Tenn. L. Rev. 627, 650 (2000). Paula L. Hannaford et al., Permitting Jury Discussions During Trial: Impact of the Arizona Reform, 24 Law & Hum.Behav. 359 (2000). Valerie P. Hans, Empowering the Active Jury: A Genuine Tort Reform, 13 Roger Williams U. L. Rev. 39 (2008). Valerie P. Hans, Judges, Juries, and Scientific Evidence, 16 J.L. & Pol’y 19 (2007). Valerie P. Hans, Inside the Black Box: Comment on Diamond and Vidmar, 87 Va. L. Rev. 1917 (2001). Valerie P. Hans & Stephanie Albertson, Empirical Research and Civil Jury Reform, 78 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1497 (2003). Valerie P. Hans et al., The Arizona Jury Reform Permitting Civil Jury Discussions: The Views of Trial Participants, Judges, and Jurors, 32 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 349 (1999). Larry Heuer & Steven Penrod, Trial Complexity: A Field Investigation of Its Meaning and Its Effects, 18 Law & Hum. Behav. 29 (1994). Larry Heuer & Steven Penrod, Juror Notetaking and Question Asking During Trials: A National Field Experiment, 18 Law & Hum. Behav. 121 (1994). Larry Heuer & Steven D. Penrod, Instructing Jurors: A Field Experiment with Written and
Appendix_3_2015.docx