Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2607.03980

Selecting Proportional Juries

Abstract

I study the problem of selecting a jury from a qualified panel. Every jurisdiction in the United States (with the exception of Arizona) allows litigants to exercise peremptory strikes on the panel to eliminate potential jurors, with the remaining individuals being seated on the final jury. However, such a system prevents litigants from guaranteeing that the jury is proportional with respect to their preferred characteristic, particularly when only a minority of panel members exhibit that characteristic. Although some legal scholars have suggested affirmative selection, wherein litigants choose whom they want on the jury, as an alternative, this system also does not guarantee proportional juries. In this paper, I formalize ``proportionality" and show that there exists a family of methods that mix peremptory strikes and affirmative selection that allow litigants to guarantee that the jury is proportional with respect to their preferences over the panel.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Eisho Takatsuji. 2026-07-04. Selecting Proportional Juries. https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.03980

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Measurement of Trustworthiness of the Online Reviews

Online review platforms shape consumer decisions, yet reported ratings and comments may be unreliable when reviewers behave inconsistently. This paper models online reviews as a sequential choice problem and proposes a formal rationality pattern function that links a reviewer's current review to their revealed preference history. Building on a two-way consistency axiom for choices from nested sets, we derive an object-specific support trajectory and an associated degree measure in [0,1] (Average Propensity to Choose a Pattern, APCP) that quantifies review trustworthiness. The measure is designed to support information updating and reduce asymmetric information by discounting reviews that are inconsistent with past behavior. A worked example illustrates how the approach assigns trustworthiness grades to reviews for different objects and how these grades can complement aggregate rating statistics. Finally, a generalized theory has been established.

econ.TH

The Depth and Reach of Exploitation: Contracting with Endogenously Naive Consumers

Consumers can invest resources to understand and avoid their behavioral mistakes, and their incentives to do so depend on the market consequences of remaining naive. We incorporate this feedback between consumers' cognitive states and market outcomes into a general contracting model. Firms face a trade-off between the depth and reach of exploitation: deeper exploitation raises profit from a naive consumer but induces greater cognitive investment, promoting sophistication and shrinking the exploitable consumer base. This trade-off disciplines exploitation and can cause policies that benefit consumers when cognition is fixed to backfire when cognition is endogenous.

econ.TH

Contracting under Misspecification

This paper studies agency problems when both parties worry that the model linking action to output is misspecified. With observable actions, an optimal contract is linear in output, so performance pay arises solely to share misspecification exposure, the slope reflects the parties' relative robustness concerns, and its allocation is Pareto efficient. With hidden actions, this sharing rule survives and incentives add a nonlinear correction. Misspecification concerns can polarize effort by making intermediate actions impossible to implement. Moreover, ambiguity across competing models has asymmetric effects: uncertainty about desired actions raises the principal's payoff, whereas uncertainty about deviations can lower it.

econ.TH