RAPID: Impact of Changing Death Penalty Unanimity Requirements on Case Decisions

Florida recently announced legislation that will revise jury death penalty sentencing requirements. Specifically, while previously a jury had to be unanimous to recommend a death sentence versus a sentence of life without parole, the new rule requires only a majority eight of 12 jurors to vote for death to recommend the death penalty. Although research has previously shown that, predictably, death penalty decisions are more likely under a majority rule than a unanimity rule, the relationship between the sentencing decision rule and pre-trial decision-making (e.g., accepting a plea bargain) is less clear. One might assume that lowering the number of jurors required for a recommendation of death, thereby making a death sentence more likely, would increase the number of plea bargains accepted. However, there are theoretical reasons to believe that the opposite might happen. Different theories of decision-making would argue for different impacts of a shift to non-unanimity on pre-trial decisions, with some arguing for a decrease in plea bargains accepted and some an increase in plea bargains accepted. Of particular relevance here are Shadow of the Trial theory and Prospect Theory, which make opposite predictions as the risk of a death sentence increases. The proposed study seeks to clarify our theoretical and real-world understanding of the impact of unanimity rules on pre-trial decisions. Specifically, we will gather real-world data on first-degree murder cases in the state of Florida both before and after the proposed change goes into effect in a few months. The knowledge gained through this research directly informs decisions made by legal actors, including defense attorneys and prosecutors. It is important to track the impact of legislative changes on the legal system at all stages, as this can inform decisions made in other jurisdictions that may be considering similar changes. This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.