This idea shows up throughout the research. Lieberman, (2011) made it very clear that “background factors can have greater predictive ability when highly specific attitudinal measures are used and when juror characteristics are examined on a case-by-case basis” However, the Lieberman (2011) made it very clear that the research was deficient due to the lack of access to “all the tools available to [scientific jury researchers]” In a similar line of thought within a separate, earlier study, Seltzer (2006) found that the methods need to consider the, “case-specific facts, locality, current manifestations of community bias, and other factors particular to the case currently being litigated.” In Seltzer's research, he found that “some predictability is possible and that the level of predictability is affected by the unique characteristics of each case” Though, the effectiveness is quite weak, only really being able to have a true impact in civil cases that would already have been very close. Ultimately, Seltzer (2006) makes the significant statement “jurors cannot be predicted with the type of accuracy associated with experiments in physics.” (Seltzer, …show more content…
Lane (1999), mentioned that simply by the public believing that scientific jury selection is truly effective, and can ultimately have strong grip on the verdict of cases, it creates a perception that the process is not actually just. If the verdict can be predicted, then the process is not fulfilling what the institution of American courts is believed to be. Gruppie reasoned in a similar way in a 2006 article which stated, “If the outcome of a trial can be manipulated by simply choosing jurors acceptable by consultants, the trial jury would cease to function impartially and would ultimately have to be abandoned.” (Gruppie,