Data Dictionary • juryR

Understanding the Data

The initial data set was collected from 48 criminal trials held in Judge Birmingham’s courtroom in Dallas County between 2015 and 2021. A breakdown of the cases by charge can be seen in the table below. The most common type of charge within the data was Child Sex Abuse, making up 31% of the total. The entire data set consists of 3,300 observations across the 48 trials.

Charge	Cases
Aggravated Assault	5
Aggravated Robbery	4
Assault on a Peace Officer	1
Capital Murder	7
Child Sex Abuse	15
Intimate Partner Family Violence	4
Intoxication Manslaughter	2
Murder	7
Sexual Assault	2
White Collar	1

For each trial, the venire member’s birthday (anonymized to age), gender, and race are reported. In addition, based on the available information, it is also possible to see how each venireperson went through voir dire. For those that were dismissed, the reasoning behind the dismissal is included. Others are noted as being struck by either the State or the defense through peremptory challenges, or who were neither struck nor dismissed, but were not selected for the final jury. Finally, the selected jurors and alternates are noted in the data. Regarding the defendant, their name has been anonymized in the final data set, but their race, gender, charges, and final verdicts are included. Additional variables were created to facilitate communication, anonymize the data, and create summary variables for use in the analysis.

In the cases of logical True/False responses, the data were recoded to a factor of 1 = True and 0 = False.

Subsets

At one point in the data collection, Judge Birmingham began to record more specific responses to the consideration of punishment (pun_min or pun_max) and if the potential juror held a bias either for or against the state or defense (bias_for_state, bias_a_g_state, bias_for_def, bias_a_g_def). Since not all cases included these details, two new subsets were created to include only those with this breakdown. This amounted to a total of 25 cases for detailed bias questions (1,685 observations) and 28 cases for detailed punishment questions (1,797 observations).

Variable List

This list is taken from the appendix of the paper.

Variable	Description
`juror_id`	These numbers indicate the juror’s respective number in each row from Judge Birmingham’s original data and seating charts. Each juror is assigned a number randomly where they will remain seated for the entire voir dire.
`venireperson`	In addition to being assigned a seat for the jury selection process, each juror is assigned their own juror number.
`caused`	This marking indicates that the venireperson was challenged and struck for cause.
`state`	This marking indicates that a peremptory strike was used by the State – Article 35.14 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure states: “A peremptory challenge is made to a juror without assigning any reason thereafter.” Therefore, both the State and the Defense may exercise a Peremptory strike on up to 10 jurors (per side) for any reason other than race or gender.
`defense`	This marking indicates that a peremptory strike was used by the Defense – Article 35.14 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure states: “A peremptory challenge is made to a juror without assigning any reason thereafter.” Therefore, both the State and the Defense may exercise a Peremptory strike on up to 10 jurors (per side) for any reason other than race or gender.
`juror_not_struck`	This marking indicates that a juror was not struck for cause, and was therefore eligible to be selected as a juror from the remaining pool of eligible jurors.
`ammend_5`	When a juror has a bias that would in some way affect their ability to remain fair, they may be challenged for cause. However, to justify a veniremember’s exclusion, it is not enough to show the existence of a bias or prejudice. The proponent of a challenge does not need his burden until he has shown that the veniremen understood the requirements of the law and could not overcome his prejudice well enough to follow it. See Sells v. State, 121 S.W.3d 748 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). The law states that a Defendant cannot be compelled to testify against himself. If a defendant elects not to testify, that refusal cannot be considered as evidence against him. A juror must then be able to follow the law that states that they will not consider it as evidence against the defendant if they choose not to testify. If a juror would require the defendant to testify or otherwise hold his refusal to testify against him as evidence of guilt, then they are challengeable for cause for being unable to follow the law regarding the 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination.
`judgment`	If a juror says that because of their religious or moral beliefs, they are unable to sit in judgment of another person, regardless of any biases they may or may not have, they may be challengeable for cause. See Comeaux v. State, 445 S.W. 3d 745 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)
`inn`	When a juror has a bias that would in some way affect their ability to remain fair, they may be challenged for cause. However, to justify a veniremember’s exclusion, it is not enough to show the existence of a bias or prejudice. The proponent of a challenge does not meet his burden until he has shown that the veniremen understood the requirements of the law and could not overcome his prejudice well enough to follow it. See Sells v. State, 121 S.W.3d 748 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). The law states that a defendant is presumed innocent until and unless the State proves him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If a juror states that he cannot presume a defendant innocent and already believes the defendant guilty of some offense, that juror is challengeable for cause for being unable to follow the law regarding the presumption of innocence.
`bias_no_fair` `bias_for_state` `bias_a_g_state` `bias_for_def` `bias_a_g_def`	The law must be clearly explained to a juror. If the juror says they can follow that law regardless of their personal views, they are qualified. See Buntion v. State, 482 S.W.3d 58)(Tex. Crim. App. 2016). In contrast, if a juror says that they cannot remain fair or impartial during voir dire regarding a particular topic, then they cannot serve as a juror and are challengeable for cause. (a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure states: “A challenge for cause is an objection made to a particular juror, alleging some fact which renders the juror incapable or unfit to serve on the jury. A challenge for cause may be made by either the State or the Defense” for the reasons listed in that article. Article 35.16(9) states that a juror may be challenged for cause if “the juror has a bias or a prejudice in favor of or against the defendant.” This law applies in the reverse as well; if the juror has a bias for the State (or, in other words, a bias against the Defendant) then they cannot serve as a juror. See State v. Smith, 907 S.W.2d 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). In short, if a juror has a bias for or against either party, they cannot serve as a juror. NOTE: In some of the cases included in this data set, the Court did not note which side the juror had a bias for or against specifically; merely that the juror had a bias one way or another.
`bias_for_police`	Article 35.16(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure states: “A challenge for cause is an objection made to a particular juror, alleging some fact which renders the juror incapable or unfit to serve on the jury. A juror who shows to have an absolute or extreme position that is unpersuadable is challengeable for cause. See Hernandez v. State, 563 S.W.2d 947 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), where a juror who said she would”always believe police officers” was challengeable for cause.
`bias_a_g_police`	Article 35.16(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure states: “A challenge for cause is an objection made to a particular juror, alleging some fact which renders the juror incapable or unfit to serve on the jury. A juror who shows to have an absolute or extreme position that is unpersuadable is challengeable for cause. The same principle applies in the reverse (a juror is challengeable for cause if they say they will never believe a police officer, and are unpersuadable to that point.) See also Ladd v. State, 3 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999)
`cant_follow_law`	Article 35.16(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure states: “A challenge for cause is an objection made to a particular juror, alleging some fact which renders the juror incapable or unfit to serve on the jury. A challenge for cause may be made by either the State or the Defense” for the reasons listed in that article. Article 35.16(b)(3) states that “a challenge for cause may be made by the State if the juror”has a bias or prejudice against any phase of the law upon which the State is entitled to rely for conviction or punishment.” Jurors are not required to agree with the law, they are only required to follow it. See Sells v. State, 121 S.W.3d 748 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).
`attn`	Government Code section 62.109(a) allows for a judge of a district court to exempt a potential juror for physical or mental impairment. Therefore, if a potential juror says that there is something going on in their personal lives such that they would not be able to give their full and fair attention to the evidence presented at the trial, they may be excused from service.
`bop_100_percent`	A juror who would hold the State to a higher burden of proof than Beyond A Reasonable Doubt is challengeable for cause. See Coleman v. State, 881 S.W.2d 344 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994).
`phys`	The State does not have to produce a specific type of evidence to prove it’s case beyond a reasonable doubt. A juror must return a verdict of guilty if they are convinced that the evidence proves the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, even if there is no physical evidence like fingerprints, DNA, or medical findings in a child abuse case. If a juror can’t return a verdict of guilty unless there is physical evidence, even if they believe the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the juror is caused. See De La Cerda v. State, 425 S.W.3d 367 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011).
`agmt`	Article 35.05 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure states: “One summoned upon a special venire may be by consent of both parties excused from attendance by the court at any time before he is impaneled.” Therefore, if both the State and Defense have agreed to release a juror for any variety of reasons, that person may be dismissed.
`vict`	A trial judge must excuse a juror if bias or prejudice would substantially impair the juror’s ability to carry out their oath and instructions in accordance with the law. See Comeaux v. State, 445 S.W.3d 745 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) If a juror states that they, or someone they were close to, were the victim of a crime, they may be challengeable for cause if they would not be able to set that experience aside and judge the case according to the law and the evidence.
`eye_witness`	Article 35.16(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure states: “A challenge for cause is an objection made to a particular juror, alleging some fact which renders the juror incapable or unfit to serve on the jury. A challenge for cause may be made by either the State or the Defense” for the reasons listed in that article. Article 35.16(b)(3) states that “a challenge for cause may be made by the State if the juror”has a bias or prejudice against any phase of the law upon which the State is entitled to rely for conviction or punishment.” A witness is challengeable for cause if they would not return a verdict of guilty based on the testimony of one eyewitness, even if they believed that the one eyewitness established each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See Lee v. State, 206 S.W.3d 620, (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Leonard v. State, 923 S.W.2d 770 (Tex. App. - Ft. Worth, 1996).
`pun` `pun_min` `pun_max`	Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 35.16 lists all the challenges for cause, including if the juror has a bias or prejudice against any phase of the law upon which the State or Defense is entitled to rely for conviction of punishment. A juror who cannot consider the entire range of punishment is therefore challengeable for cause. A juror who states that they could never consider sentencing the defendant to the minimum sentence in the punishment range applicable to that case cannot serve as a juror, because they cannot follow the law as it relates to the punishment range. Similarly, if a juror says that they would not be able to impose the maximum range of punishment in a case, they would be challengeable for cause as they would be unable to follow the law and consider the entire range of punishment.
`esl`	A juror is incapable or unfit and may be challenged for cause based on the juror’s inability to read or write. Also encompassed in this specific challenge is a juror’s inability to understand English. See Stillwell v. State, 466 S.W.3d 908 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2015, no pet.) Government Code section 62.109(a) also outlines an exemption for potential jurors who are unable to comprehend English.
`covid`	Government Code section 62.109(a) allows for a judge of a district court to exempt a potential juror for physical or mental impairment. Therefore, if a potential juror says that there is something going on in their personal lives or in some way insinuates that they would not be able to pay attention to the evidence presented, they may be excused from service. One of the more novel challenges for cause may include a juror who has stated that due to the worldwide Coronavirus-19 Pandemic, that serving on a jury in close proximity to others may be too distracting or alarming to them, possibly making them challengeable for cause.
`med`	Article 35.16(a)(5) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure discusses various medical issues that may make a juror unfit for service, and therefore challengeable for cause.
`prior_conviction`	Article 35.16(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure states: “A challenge for cause is an objection made to a particular juror, alleging some fact which renders the juror incapable or unfit to serve on the jury. A challenge for cause may be made by either the State or the Defense” for the reasons listed in that article. Article 35.16(a)(2) and 35.16(a)(3) allow a challenge for cause for a juror who has been convicted of a misdemeanor theft or felony, or of a juror who is under indictment or other legal accusation for misdemeanor theft or felony.
`no_show`	This marking is indicated when a juror may have checked in for jury service but did not report to the courtroom where jury selection ultimately took place.
`work_exempt`	While a conflicting work obligation does not automatically constitute a legal exemption, the parties may agree under Article 35.05 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure to excuse a juror who states that they have a work obligation (for example, a business trip with flights already booked, etc.)
`chil_exempt`	Government Code Section 62.106 lists the possible exemptions from jury service. Section 62.106(a)(2) states that a juror may be exempt from jury service if they have “legal custody of a child younger than 12 years of age and the person’s service on the jury requires leaving the child without adequate supervision.”
`age_exempt`	Government Code Section 62.106 lists the possible exemptions from jury service. Section 62.106(a)(1) states that a juror may be exempt from jury service if they are over 70 years of age.
`jur_age`	In order to anonymize the data, juror’s birthdays were converted into integer values.
`jur_race`	Self-reported value
`jur_gend`	Self-reported value
`zip_code`	Zip code where juror received the summons
`defendants_name`	Anonymized by trial (i.e. def_1)
`defendants_race`	Self-reported value
`defendants_gender`	Self-reported value
`charge`	Charge against defendant
`verdict`	Trial verdict
`punishment_number_years`	Length of punishment
`probation`	Was the defendant put on probation
`age_group`	Summary variable for `jur_age`
`peremptory_strike`	Summary variable for state & defense
`jur_caused`	Summary variable for dismissed for cause
`jur_struck`	Summary variable for struck
`jur_exempt`	Summary variable for exempt from service
`jur_disqualified`	Summary variable for disqualified
`jur_biased`	Summary variable for bias
`jur_pun`	Summary variable for punishment
`city`	To what city does `jur_race` belong
`i_30`	Does `jur_zip` fall North of I-30, South of I-30, or does it split I-30?
`po_box`	Is `jur_zip` associated with a PO Box
`jur_race_w`	Same as `jur_race` but with “White” as the reference

Examine the Data

Here you can see the first six rows of data for the bullpen dataset.

juror_id	venireperson	caused	defense	juror_not_struck	judgement	jur_age	jur_race	jur_gend	zip_code	defendants_name	defendants_race	defendants_gender	cause_number_f_xx_xxxxx	charge	verdict	punishment_number_years	age_group	peremptory_strike	jur_caused	jur_struck	jur_exempt	jur_disqualified	jur_biased	jur_pun	city	i_30	po_box	jur_race_w
1	2	0	1	Not a Juror	0	54	Hispanic	Female	75172	def_18	Black	Male	trial_36	Murder	Lesser	10	45 - 54	Defense	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	Wilmer	South	N	Hispanic
2	3	0	1	Not a Juror	0	67	White	Male	75001	def_18	Black	Male	trial_36	Murder	Lesser	10	55 +	Defense	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	Addison	North	N	White
3	5	0	0	Juror	0	26	White	Male	75081	def_18	Black	Male	trial_36	Murder	Lesser	10	18 - 30	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Richardson	North	N	White
4	6	0	0	Juror	0	27	Asian	Male	75202	def_18	Black	Male	trial_36	Murder	Lesser	10	18 - 30	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Dallas	North	N	Asian
5	7	1	0	Not a Juror	1	30	Black	Male	75116	def_18	Black	Male	trial_36	Murder	Lesser	10	31 - 44	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	Duncanville	South	N	Black
6	8	1	0	Not a Juror	1	29	White	Female	75051	def_18	Black	Male	trial_36	Murder	Lesser	10	18 - 30	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	Grand Prairie	South	N	White