Hostname: page-component-857557d7f7-gtc7z Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-11-27T05:03:02.862Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Deciding without Deliberating: Voices from Brazilian Jurors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2025

Gabriela Perissinotto de Almeida Open the ORCID record for Gabriela Perissinotto de Almeida [Opens in a new window]  and
Valerie P. Hans
Gabriela Perissinotto de Almeida*
Affiliation:
Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil
Valerie P. Hans
Affiliation:
Cornell Law School, USA
*
Corresponding author: Gabriela P. Almeida. Email: gabriela.perissinotto.almeida@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Deliberation is routinely considered an essential component of a jury trial, contributing to the quality of fact-finding and confidence in jury verdicts. Unlike all other countries that use juries, Brazilian jurors do not deliberate. Instead, under the Brazilian jury system’s “incommunicability rule,” they submit their votes individually, without discussing the case with one another. How jurors approach the task of individual decision making and how they view and experience this notable absence of deliberation are unknown. The aim of this article, which is part of a broader research project on jurors’ decision making in femicide trials in Brazil, is to understand these experiences and views of Brazilian jurors, especially regarding the incommunicability rule. The research used qualitative methods, including ethnographic observations of trials and semi-structured interviews of jurors. The majority of jurors voiced support for the current practice, explaining that refraining from deliberation would ensure their impartiality. However, 41 percent of the jurors said that they would have liked to deliberate with others to exchange and debate views. Interviews also shed light on how the absence of deliberation affected the decision process and jurors’ satisfaction with the overall jury experience. This research contributes to an ongoing debate in Brazil over the incommunicability rule.

Keywords

Brazildeliberationincommunicability rulejurorjury

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , First View , pp. 1 - 32
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of American Bar Foundation

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Almeida, Fábio Ferraz de. 2022. Ninguém quer ser jurado: Uma etnografia da participação dos jurados no Tribunal do Júri [Nobody wants to be a juror: an ethnography of the jurors’ participation in the Jury Court]. São Paulo: Dialética.10.48021/978-65-252-3821-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antonio, Michael E., and Hans, Valerie P.. 2001. “Race and the Civil Jury: How Does a Juror’s Race Shape the Jury Experience?” In Psychology in the Courts: International Advances in Knowledge, edited by Roesch, Ronald, Corrado, Raymond R., and Dempster, Rebecca, 69–81. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bardin, Laurance. 2016. Análise de Conteúdo [Content analysis]. São Paulo: Edições 70.Google Scholar
Baptista, Bárbara Gomes Lupetti. 2020. “A crença no princípio (ou mito) da imparcialidade judicial” [The belief in the principle (or myth) of judicial impartiality]. Revista de Estudos Empíricos em Direito 7, no. 2: 203–23. https://doi.org/10.19092/reed.v7i2.470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bittencourt, Fabiana Silva. 2023. “Comunicação entre os jurados como forma de qualificar o Veredito” [Communication between jurors as a way to qualify the Verdict]. PhD diss., Universidade de São Paulo.Google Scholar
Djalma, Brochado Neto, 2016. “Representatividade no Tribunal do Júri: Críticas à seleção dos jurados e propostas à luz do modelo americano” [Representativeness in the Jury Court: criticisms of the selection of jurors and proposals in the light of the American model]. MA thesis, Universidade Federal do Ceará.Google Scholar
Cerqueira, Daniel, Ferreira, Helder, Bueno, Samira, Alves, Paloma Pamieri, de Lima, Renato Sergio, Margues, David, Augusto Barbosa, Frederico et al. 2021. Atlas da Violência 2021 [Atlas of violence 2021]. São Paulo: Fórum Brasileiro de Segurança Pública.10.38116/riatlasdaviolencia2021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Patricia Hill, and Bilge, Sirma. 2021. Interseccionalidade [Interseccionality.] São Paulo: Boitempo.Google Scholar
Conselho Nacional de Justiça. 2022. Relatório Mês Nacional do Júri [National jury month report]. Brasília: Conselho Nacional de Justiça.Google Scholar
Cornwell, Erin York, and Hans, Valerie P.. 2011. “Representation through Participation: A Multilevel Analysis of Jury Deliberations.” Law & Society Review 45, no. 3: 667–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2011.00447.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crozara, Rosberg de Souza, 2010. “A (in)comunicabilidade dos jurados: da tradição brasileira ao anteprojeto de reforma do Código de Processo Penal: uma questão constitucional.” [The (in)communicability of jurors: from the Brazilian tradition to the draft reform of the Criminal Procedure Code: a constitutional issue]. In O novo processo penal à luz da Constituição [The new criminal procedure in light of the Constitution], edited by Jacinto Nelson de Miranda Coutinho and Luis Gustavo Grandinetti Castanho de Carvalho, 235–46. Rio de Janeiro: Lumen Juris.Google Scholar
Devine, Dennis, Clayton, Laura, Dunford, Benjamin, Seying, Rasmy, and Pryce, Jennifer. 2001. “Jury Decision Making: 45 Years of Empirical Research on Deliberating Groups.” Psychology, Public Policy, & Law 7, no. 3: 622–727. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.7.3.622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devine, Dennis, Buddenbaum, Jennifer, Houp, Stephanie, Stolle, Dennis, and Studebaker, Nathan. 2007. “Deliberation Quality: A Preliminary Examination in Criminal Juries.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 4, no. 2: 273–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00089.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, Shari Seidman, 1993. “What Jurors Think: Expectations and Reactions of Citizens Who Serve as Jurors.” In Verdict: Assessing the Civil Jury System, edited by Robert, E. Litan, 282–305. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Diamond, Shari Seidman, and Casper, Jonathan. 1992. “Blindfolding the Jury to Verdict Consequences: Damages, Experts, and the Civil Jury.” Law & Society Review 26: 513–63. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, Shari Seidman, and Hans, Valerie P.. 2023. “Fair Juries.” University of Illinois Law Review 2023, no. 3: 879–954. https://illinoislawreview.org/print/vol-2023-no-3/fair-juries/.Google Scholar
Diamond, Shari Seidman, and Rose, Mary. 2018. “The Contemporary American Jury.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 14: 239–58. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, Shari Seidman, Vidmar, Neil, Rose, Mary, Ellis, Leslie, and Murphy, Beth. 2003. “Juror Discussions during Civil Trials: Studying an Arizona Innovation.” Arizona Law Review 45: 1–81.Google Scholar
Ellsworth, Phoebe C. 1989. “Are Twelve Heads Better Than One?” Law and Contemporary Problems 52, no. 4: 205–24. https://doi.org/10.2307/1191911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gastil, John, Pierre Deess, E., Weiser, Philip J., and Simmons, Cindy. 2010. The Jury and Democracy. How Jury Deliberation Promotes Civic Engagement and Political Participation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gomes, Márcio Schlee. 2010. “Sigilo das votações e incomunicabilidade: garantias constitucionais do júri brasileiro” [Voting secrecy and incommunicability: constitutional guarantees of the Brazilian jury]. Revista do Ministério Público do Rio Grande do Sul 67: 35–59.Google Scholar
Gomes, Luiz Flavio, and Paula Zomer, Ana. 2001. “The Brazilian Jury System.” St. Louis-Warsaw Transatlantic Law Journal 75: 75–80.Google Scholar
Hannaford, Paula, Hans, Valerie P., Mott, Nicole, and Thomas Munsterman, G.. 2000. “The Timing of Opinion Formation by Jurors in Civil Cases: An Empirical Examination.” Tennessee Law Review 67: 627–52.Google Scholar
Hannaford, Paula L., Hans, Valerie P., and Thomas Munsterman, G., G. T. 2000. “Permitting Jury Discussions during Trial: Impact of the Arizona Reform.” Law and Human Behavior 24: 359–82.10.1023/A:1005540305832CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hannaford-Agor, Paula, Hans, Valerie, Mott, Nicole, and Thomas Munsterman, G., 2002. Are Hung Juries a Problem? Washington, DC: National Center for State Courts/National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice. http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Res_Juries_HungJuriesPub.pdf.Google Scholar
Hans, Valerie P., Diamond, Shari S., Ivković, Sanja Kutnjak, and Marder, Nancy S.. 2024. “Judgment by Peers: Lay Participation in Legal Decision Making.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 20: 141–61. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041822-025652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hans, Valerie P., Hannaford-Agor, Paula, Mott, Nicole, and Thomas Munsterman, G.. 2003. “The Hung Jury: The American Jury’s Insights and Contemporary Understanding.” Criminal Law Bulletin 39: 33–50. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1297272.Google Scholar
Hans, Valerie P., Hannaford-Agor, Paula, and Thomas Munsterman, G.. 1999. “The Arizona Jury Reform Permitting Civil Jury Trial Discussions: The Views of Trial Participants, Judges, and Jurors.” University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 32: 349–77.Google Scholar
Hans, Valerie P., and Vidmar, Neil. 1986. Judging the Jury. New York: Plenum Press.10.1007/978-1-4899-6463-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. 2025. Censo Demográfico 2022: Educação (Demographic Census: Education). https://censo2022.ibge.gov.br/panorama.Google Scholar
James, Rita. 1959. “Status and Competence of Jurors.” American Journal of Sociology 64, no. 6: 563–70. https://doi.org/10.1086/222589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalven, Harry Jr., and Zeisel, Hans. 1966. The American Jury. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
Kerr, Norbert L., MacCoun, Robert J., and Kramer, G. P.. 1996. “Bias in Judgment: Comparing Individuals and Groups.” Psychological Review 103, no. 4: 687–719. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.4.687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kutnjak Ivković, Sanja, Diamond, Shari Seidman, Hans, Valerie P., and Marder, Nancy S., 2021a. “Introduction.” In Kutnjak Ivković et al. 2021b, 1–21.Google Scholar
Kutnjak Ivković, Sanja, Diamond, Shari Seidman, Hans, Valerie P., and Marder, Nancy S., eds. 2021b. Juries, Lay Judges, and Mixed Courts: A Global Perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108669290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kutnjak Ivković, Sanja, and Hans, Valerie P.. 2021. “A Worldwide Perspective on Lay Participation.” In Kutnjak Ivković et al. 2021b, 323–45.Google Scholar
Kutnjak Ivković, Sanja, and Hans, Valerie P.. 2023. “Beacons of Democracy? A Worldwide Exploration of the Relationship between Democracy and Lay Participation in Criminal Cases.” Chicago-Kent Law Review 98, no. 1: 131–61. https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol98/iss1/10.Google Scholar
Lorea, Roberto Arriada, 2003. “Os jurados ‘leigos’: Uma antropologia do Tribunal do Júri.” [“Lay” Jurors: An Anthropology of the Jury Court]. MA thesis, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul.Google Scholar
Marder, Nancy S. 2021. “What Hollywood, USA, Teaches the World (Incorrectly and Correctly) about Juries.” In Kutnjak Ivković et al. 2021b, 285–303.Google Scholar
Marder, Nancy S. 2022. The Power of the Jury: Transforming Citizens into Jurors. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108630009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munsterman, Janet T., Thomas Munsterman, G., Lynch, Brian, and Penrod, Steven D.. 1991. The Relationship of Juror Fees and Terms of Service to Jury System Performance. Arlington, VA: National Center for State Courts.Google Scholar
Nucci, Guilherme. 2005. Tribunal do Júri [Jury court]. Rio de Janeiro: Forense.Google Scholar
Nuñez, Izabel, 2018. Dogmas e Doutrinas: Verdades consagradas e interpretações sobre o tribunal do júri [Dogmas and doctrines: consecrated truths and interpretations about the jury trial]. Rio de Janeiro: Autografia.Google Scholar
Pennington, Liana, and Dolliver, Matthew J.. 2021. “The Effect of Deliberation on Jurors’ Attitudes toward Jury Service in Criminal Cases.” Law & Social Inquiry 46, no. 2: 391–406.10.1017/lsi.2020.29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereira e Silva, Rodrigo Faucz, and Surdi de Avelar, Daniel Ribeiro. 2020. Manual do Tribunal do Júri [Jury court manual]. São Paulo: Thomson Reuters Brasil.Google Scholar
Rangel, Paulo. 2018. Tribunal do Júri [Jury court]. São Paulo: Atlas.Google Scholar
Rose, Reginald. 1972. “Twelve Angry Men.” In Film Scripts Two, edited by Garrett, G. P., Hardison, O. B., & Gelfman, J. R., 156–337. Milwaukee, WI: Applause Theatre & Cinema Books.Google Scholar
Samuelson, William, and Zeckhauser, Richard. 1988. “Status Quo Bias in Decision Making.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1: 7–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00055564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, Benjamin, Sim, Julius, Kingstone, Tom, Baker, Shula, Waterfield, Jackie, Bartlam, Bernadette, Burroughs, Heather, and Jinks, Clare. 2018. “Saturation in Qualitative Research: Exploring Its Conceptualization and Operationalization.” Quality & Quantity 52, no. 4: 1893–1907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schritzmeyer, Ana Lucia Pastore. 2012. Jogo, Ritual e Teatro: um estudo antropológico do Tribunal do Júri [Game, ritual and theater: an anthropological study of the jury court]. São Paulo: Terceiro Nome.Google Scholar
Sommers, Samuel. 2006. “On Racial Diversity and Group Decision-Making: Identifying Multiple Effects of Racial Composition on Jury Deliberations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90: 597–612. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sprain, Leah, and Gastil, John. 2013. “What Does It Mean to Deliberate? An Interpretative Account of Jurors’ Expressed Deliberative Rules and Premises.” Communication Quarterly 61, no. 2: 151–71.10.1080/01463373.2012.751433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streck, Lenio. 1988. “O Tribunal do Júri e os Estereótipos: uma leitura interdisciplinary” [The jury court and stereotypes: an interdisciplinary reading]. MA thesis, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina.Google Scholar
Tucci, Rogério, ed. 1999. Tribunal do Júri: estudo sobre a mais democrática instituição jurídica brasileira [Jury court: a study on the most democratic Brazilian legal institution]. São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais.Google Scholar
Vieira, Regina Stela Côrrea, 2020. “A tipificação do feminicídio na Argentina e as marchas Ni Una a Menos” [The typification of femicide in Argentina and the Ni Una a Menos marches]. In Feminicídio. Quando a desigualdade de gênero mata: mapeamento da Tipificação na América Latina, edited by Martins Bertolin, Patrícia Tuma, Angotti, Bruna, and Corrêa Vieira, Regina Stela, 317–38. Joaçaba: Universidade do Oeste de Santa Catarina.Google Scholar
Waiselfisz, Julio Jacob. 2015. Mapa da Violência 2015. Homicídios de Mulheres no Brasil [Map of violence 2015: homicides of women in Brazil]. Brasília: Organização das Nações Unidas, Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde /Organização Mundial da Saúde, Secretaria de Política para as Mulheres; Rio de Janeiro: Faculdade Latino-Americana de Ciências Sociais.Google Scholar
Waters, Nicole, and Hans, Valerie P.. 2009. “A Jury of One: Opinion Formation, Conformity, and Dissent on Juries.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 6: 513–40. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1297272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, Alix S., and Clair, Matthew. 2018. “Jurors’ Subjective Experiences of Deliberations in Criminal Cases.” Law & Social Inquiry 43, no. 4: 1458–90.10.1111/lsi.12288CrossRefGoogle Scholar