Felon-Jurors’ Impact on Deliberation Satisfaction: Do They Really “Infect” the Process?

Abstract Forty-nine states, the federal government, and the District of Colombia, statutorily restrict citizens with a felony conviction from serving as jurors. Proponents of felon-juror exclusion justify the practice by suggesting that those with a felony criminal history, if allowed to serve, would infect the adjudicative process. No data supports this assumption. Rather, evidence tends to demonstrate that those with a felony conviction welcome jury service and perform admirably as jurors. Drawing on both quantitative and qualitative data from a mock jury experiment, we build on this prior research, exploring the impact of diversity on mock jurors’ views of jury service. Findings reveal that diversity of experience, in the form of a felony criminal history, does not “infect” the jury process. Instead, results indicate that the inclusion of felon-jurors has either no effect on or, in some instances, actually increases juror satisfaction. Specifically, the inclusion of felon-jurors makes it more likely that members of a mixed jury view deliberations as helpful for the group and their own opinions as highly valued. These findings support prior research demonstrating the positive impacts of diversity on jury deliberations, informing literatures on felon-juror exclusion and the role of deliberations in shaping attitudes.