The Current Debate on Juror Questions: To Ask or Not to Ask, That Is the Question

This Article addresses the concerns as well as the advantages when courts allow jurors to submit questions to the court and/or witnesses. Based on reviewing the content of 2,271 juror questions submitted in 164 cases, the author categorizes what jurors typically ask and to whom jurors direct their questions. Most juror questions were directed to witnesses and experts. In both criminal and civil cases, jurors typically asked facts about the case, motives of both the witness and the defendant/party, and common practices of professions often unfamiliar to laypersons. In criminal cases, jurors were more likely to question specific eyewitness evidence or facts. More fitting to civil cases, jurors frequently asked financial questions. Most juror questions aimed to clarify testimony, not to introduce new evidence or interrogate witnesses. Jurors utilize the question-asking procedure to enhance their role as a neutral fact finder, not to the detriment of the adversary system. Based on empirical evaluations, and with appropriate judicial discretion and court management of questioning, the concerns of critics appear unfounded

What\u27s Half a Lung Worth? Civil Jurors\u27 Accounts of Their Award Decision Making

Jury awards are often criticized as being arbitrary and excessive. This paper speaks to that controversy, reporting data from interviews with civil jurors\u27 accounts of the strategies that juries use and the factors that they consider in arriving at a collective award. Jurors reported difficulty in deciding on awards, describing it as the hardest part of jury service and were surprised the court did not provide more guidance to them. Relatively few jurors entered the jury deliberation room with a specified award figure in mind. Once in the deliberation room, however, they reported discussing a variety of relevant factors such as the seriousness of the injury, the plaintiff\u27s age, and occasionally even more esoteric items such as the impact of inflation. Two frequent topics of discussion, attorneys\u27 fees and insurance, suggest that jurors attempt to estimate the actual impact of an award on both the defendant and plaintiff. This descriptive account may help to inform the debate about whether jurors require additional guidance or information in the award process

The Timing of Opinion Formation by Jurors in Civil Cases: An Empirical Examination

The question of when and how jurors form opinions about evidence presented at trial has been the focus of seemingly endless speculation. For lawyers, the question is how to capture the attention and approval of the jury at the earliest possible point in the trial. Their goal is to maximize the persuasiveness of their arguments--or at least to minimize the persuasiveness of those of the opposing side. Judges, in contrast, are more concerned about prejudgment. They regularly admonish jurors to suspend judgment until after all the evidence has been presented and after the jurors have been instructed on the law. Yet in the vast majority of jury trials, lawyers and judges have little opportunity to discern how jurors are reacting to trial evidence or whether they are abiding by judicial admonitions. Although researchers have thoroughly examined juror decision making in laboratory experiments, the point at which jurors form opinions in actual jury trials remains cloaked in mystery. Recently, however, that cloak was lifted enough to provide a glimpse at the timing of juror opinion formation. The opportunity to do so came in conjunction with an evaluation of a jury reform procedure implemented in Arizona civil trials in 1995. Data collected for the evaluation included the responses of 1,385 jurors from 172 civil trials concerning when they began to form opinions about the case, whether and when they changed their minds about those opinions, and when they made up their minds about the final outcome. This Article presents three competing models of juror decision making as they pertain to the timing of opinion formation. Using these models as an analytical guide, this Article examines the data from the Arizona study to assess convergence with these models and to identify factors that affect the timing of juror opinion formation in civil trials

Juror First Votes in Criminal Trials

Our analysis of the voting behavior of over 3,000 jurors in felony cases tried in Los Angeles, Maricopa County, the District of Columbia, and the Bronx reveals that only in D.C. does a juror\u27s race appear to relate to how he or she votes. African-American jurors in D.C. appear more apt to vote not guilty on the jury\u27s first ballot in cases involving minority defendants charged with drug offenses. We find no evidence, however, that this effect survives into the jury\u27s final verdict

Juror First Votes in Criminal Trials

Our analysis of the voting behavior of over 3,000 jurors in felony cases tried in Los Angeles, Maricopa County, the District of Columbia, and the Bronx reveals that only in D.C. does a juror\u27s race appear to relate to how he or she votes. African-American jurors in D.C. appear more apt to vote not guilty on the jury\u27s first ballot in cases involving minority defendants charged with drug offenses. We find no evidence, however, that this effect survives into the jury\u27s final verdict

Juror First Votes in Criminal Trials

Our analysis of the voting behavior of over 3,000 jurors in felony cases tried in Los Angeles, Maricopa County, the District of Columbia, and the Bronx reveals that only in D.C. does a juror\u27s race appear to relate to how he or she votes. African-American jurors in D.C. appear more apt to vote not guilty on the jury\u27s first ballot in cases involving minority defendants charged with drug offenses. We find no evidence, however, that this effect survives into the jury\u27s final verdict

Juror First Votes in Criminal Trials

Our analysis of the voting behavior of over 3,000 jurors in felony cases tried in Los Angeles, Maricopa County, the District of Columbia, and the Bronx reveals that only in D.C. does a juror\u27s race appear to relate to how he or she votes. African-American jurors in D.C. appear more apt to vote not guilty on the jury\u27s first ballot in cases involving minority defendants charged with drug offenses. We find no evidence, however, that this effect survives into the jury\u27s final verdict

Epigenetic Silencing of Host Cell Defense Genes Enhances Intracellular Survival of the Rickettsial Pathogen Anaplasma phagocytophilum

Intracellular bacteria have evolved mechanisms that promote survival within hostile host environments, often resulting in functional dysregulation and disease. Using the Anaplasma phagocytophilum–infected granulocyte model, we establish a link between host chromatin modifications, defense gene transcription and intracellular bacterial infection. Infection of THP-1 cells with A. phagocytophilum led to silencing of host defense gene expression. Histone deacetylase 1 (HDAC1) expression, activity and binding to the defense gene promoters significantly increased during infection, which resulted in decreased histone H3 acetylation in infected cells. HDAC1 overexpression enhanced infection, whereas pharmacologic and siRNA HDAC1 inhibition significantly decreased bacterial load. HDAC2 does not seem to be involved, since HDAC2 silencing by siRNA had no effect on A. phagocytophilum intracellular propagation. These data indicate that HDAC up-regulation and epigenetic silencing of host cell defense genes is required for A. phagocytophilum infection. Bacterial epigenetic regulation of host cell gene transcription could be a general mechanism that enhances intracellular pathogen survival while altering cell function and promoting disease

The effective opening of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors with single agonist binding sites

We have identified a means by which agonist-evoked responses of nicotinic receptors can be conditionally eliminated. Modification of α7L119C mutants by the sulfhydryl reagent 2-aminoethyl methanethiosulfonate (MTSEA) reduces responses to acetylcholine (ACh) by more than 97%, whereas corresponding mutations in muscle-type receptors produce effects that depend on the specific subunits mutated and ACh concentration. We coexpressed α7L119C subunits with pseudo wild-type α7C116S subunits, as well as ACh-insensitive α7Y188F subunits with wild-type α7 subunits in Xenopus laevis oocytes using varying ratios of cRNA. When mutant α7 cRNA was coinjected at a 5:1 ratio with wild-type cRNA, net charge responses to 300 µM ACh were retained by α7L119C-containing mutants after MTSEA modification and by the ACh-insensitive Y188F-containing mutants, even though the expected number of ACh-sensitive wild-type binding sites would on average be fewer than two per receptor. Responses of muscle-type receptors with one MTSEA-sensitive subunit were reduced at low ACh concentrations, but much less of an effect was observed when ACh concentrations were high (1 mM), indicating that saturation of a single binding site with agonist can evoke strong activation of nicotinic ACh receptors. Single-channel patch clamp analysis revealed that the burst durations of fetal wild-type and α1β1γδL121C receptors were equivalent until the α1β1γδL121C mutants were exposed to MTSEA, after which the majority (81%) of bursts were brief (≤2 ms). The longest duration events of the receptors modified at only one binding site were similar to the long bursts of native receptors traditionally associated with the activation of receptors with two sites containing bound agonists