Sociology 2111: Worksheet--"Inside the Jury Room"

1. What was the law that was violated in this case?

2. Why was this defendant, Leroy Reed, viewed as less blameworthy, even though he had clearly violated the letter of the law?

3. What kind of instructions did the jury have from the judge about their role in this case?

4. How did the jury choose its foreman, and what kind of role did he play?

5. Why did the jury keep discussing the case even after it was clear that a decision had been reached?

Sociology 2111: Group Project--"Inside the Jury Room"

The beginnings of ethnomethodology, which I see as a branch of symbolic interactionism, go back to Harold Garfinkel's 1945 analysis of tapes of jury deliberations, so this video is an appropriate vehicle for understanding the core concerns of ethnomethodology. Garfinkel wanted to know "how the jurors knew what they were doing in doing the work of jurors." In other words, more generally, how do people reach an understanding of the norms that govern various social situations they encounter?

1. Compare and contrast (similarities and differences) a jury deliberation with other social settings--for example, a classroom; a home; an office.

2. How did this jury decide the rules that would govern its deliberations? In particular, what made them decide that they could ignore, or work around, the judge's description of their responsibilities?

3. Do you often find yourselves in situations in which the norms are unclear, or seem open to negotiation? If so, when does this tend to occur? If not, would it be better if people felt less bound by norms and conventions?

4. (If you have time): In what ways might this jury have been atypical of juries in general? Have group members been on juries? If so, was the process of decision-making in those juries anything like the process here?