Articles by Category
Articles by Issue
Current ContributorsDouglas L. Keene, Ph.D.
Rita R. Handrich, Ph.D.
Ivar Hannikainen, Ph.D.
Fiery Cushman, Ph.D.
Jillian M. Ware
Jessica L. Jones
N.J. Schweitzer, Ph.D.
Matthew Groebe, Ph.D.
Garold Stasser, Ph.D.
Kevin-Khristián Cosgriff-Hernandez, M.A.
Mykol C. Hamilton, Ph.D.
Emily Lindon, B.S.
Madeline Pitt, B.S.
Emily K. Robins, B.S.
Monica K. Miller, J.D., Ph.D.
David Caditz, Ph.D.
Barnes & Roberts
Keene Trial Consulting
- Ken Broda-Bahm on The Ubiquitous Practice of “Prehabilitation” Leads Prospective Jurors to Conceal Their Biases
- Rob Cramer, Ph.D. on Novel Defenses in the Courtroom
- Doug Keene @ The Jury Room on Demographic Roulette: What Was Once a Bad Idea Has Gotten Worse
- @ibucfio on Demographic Roulette: What Was Once a Bad Idea Has Gotten Worse
- Charli Morris on Neuroimagery and the Jury
- @timodonnell14 on Demographic Roulette: What Was Once a Bad Idea Has Gotten Worse
- @CauseEffect289 on Demographic Roulette: What Was Once a Bad Idea Has Gotten Worse
- @HoweRealm on Demographic Roulette: What Was Once a Bad Idea Has Gotten Worse
Voir Dire & Jury Selection Archive
by Douglas L. Keene, Ph.D. and Rita R. Handrich, Ph.D.Posted on August 20, 2014 | 7 CommentsAuthored by Doug Keene and Rita Handrich with a response from Paul Begala, this article takes a look at how the country has changed over the past 2 decades and our old definitions of Democrat or Republican and conservative or liberal are simply no longer useful. What does that mean for voir dire? What should it mean for voir dire? Two very good questions those.
by Mykol C. Hamilton, Ph.D. and Emily Lindon, B.S. and Madeline Pitt, B.S. and Emily K. Robins, B.S.Posted on August 20, 2014 | 1 CommentAuthored by Mykol C. Hamilton, Emily Lindon, Madeline Pitt, and Emily K. Robbins, with responses from Charli Morris and Diane Wiley, this article looks at how to not “prehabilitate” your jurors and offers ideas about alternate ways of asking the question rather than the tired, old “can you be fair and unbiased?”.
by David Caditz, Ph.D.Posted on August 20, 2014 | No CommentsAuthored by David M. Caditz with responses from Roy Futterman and Edward Schwartz. Suppose there was a more predictable, accurate and efficient way of exercising your peremptory strikes? Like using a computer model based on game theory? In this article, a physicist presents his thoughts on making those final decisions more logical and rational and based on the moves opposing counsel is likely to make.
by Gayle W. Herde, Ph.D.Posted on February 6, 2014 | 1 CommentWhat to listen for when you are wanting to know about religious faith in voir dire.
by Adam B. Shniderman, M.A.Posted on February 6, 2014 | 6 CommentsA very current update on neuroscience research and the neurologically impaired client.
by Alexis Forbes, PhDPosted on February 6, 2014 | 1 CommentWhat you need to know about LGBTQ culture and up-to-date language.
by Susan MacphersonPosted on February 6, 2014 | 15 CommentsStop asking jurors to do the impossible!
by Ken Broda-Bahm, Ph.D.Posted on November 5, 2013 | 2 CommentsHow can the Defense attorney strike back at the Reptile? Here's how.
by Adam B. Shniderman, M.A.Posted on November 5, 2013 | 7 CommentsNeutralizing negative pretrial publicity…before trial, in voir dire, and during trial.
by Michael J. Bernstein, PhD and Ethan Zell, PhDPosted on November 5, 2013 | No CommentsIs it possible we really do not know our own political leanings?