Empowering the Active Jury: A Genuine Tort Reform

The rallying cry of tort reform is frequently associated with changes to the civil justice system that restrict the civil jury or avoid it altogether. Tort reformers have praised United States Supreme Court rulings that have led to greater judicial control over the evidence, especially scientific evidence, which juries hear. Other reformers advocate bifurcation of trials to avoid the possibility of jurors being so negatively influenced by testimony about damages that it affects their liability judgments. The tort system aims to compensate fairly and equitably those who are injured by others, and to do so in an efficient manner. Concerns about incompetence and bias on the part of juries have led to evidentiary and procedural rules that limit what juries can hear and do. But some of these rules have had a paradoxical effect, making it more difficult to cope with complex civil trials. This article argues in favor of a diametrically opposed type of tort reform, one that expands--rather than restricts--the scope of jury decision making. This article advocates the widespread implementation of active jury reforms. This article argues that such reforms will improve the quality of jury decision making in tort cases, which in turn should promote the ability of the tort jury to fulfill its multiple functions. Hence, the introduction of active jury techniques constitutes genuine tort reform

Juror Bias is a Special Problem in High-Profile Trials

Scott Peterson\u27s jury convicted him and sentenced him to death. Whether he had a fair jury is a question that the appellate courts will confront as they review Peterson\u27s appeal of his conviction and sentence. Would the jury have reached the same decisions if the case had not been so extensively covered in the media? Or was Scott Peterson condemned by media publicity? Whatever your verdict, the Peterson trial provides yet another example of the hurdles to fair trials in high-profile cases

Jury Selection in Two Countries: A Psychological Perspective

A comparative survey of jury selection practices in Britain and the United States indicates that the two countries differ along a number of dimensions, including the emphasis on the jury selection process in the trial, the amount and type of information available about prospective jurors, and the frequency with which trial lawyers alter the composition of the jury. The probable impact of these differences is analysed by considering the importance of jury composition in determining a jury’s verdict, the effectiveness of lawyers in exercising their challenges, and broader effects of jury selection procedures in the two countries

The Conduct of Voir Dire: A Psychological Analysis

The voir dire process in jury selection, in which the prospective jurors are questioned about their possible biases in the case, has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years. This article discusses psychological research and its implications for the conduct of the voir dire. The research indicates that individual, sequestered, open-ended questioning on issues directly relevant to the trial is the superior method for uncovering bias in prospective jurors. Furthermore, adversary attorneys appear to have a modest edge over judges in the detection of prejudice. The author notes that these findings must be balanced against other interests served by the voir dire process

Law and the Media: An Overview and Introduction

Although occasional articles on law and the media have been published in Law and Human Behavior, this special issue is the first collection of articles on the topic to appear in the journal. By publishing some of the most recent work on issues in law and the media, we hope to draw the attention of psycholegal scholars to questions in this fertile research area that deserve theoretical and empirical study. Law and the media have become inescapably intertwined. Because a relatively small proportion of the public has direct experience with the justice system, public knowledge and views of law and the legal system are largely dependent on media representations (Surette, 1984). Indeed, law, crime, and justice are frequent topics of media coverage. A substantial portion of local news pertains to crime and justice, and the legal troubles of our political leaders occupy a significant portion of national news coverage (Graber, 1980). Issues of law, crime, and justice are well represented among the most popular fiction and nonfiction television series and movies. The way in which legal events are covered is also changing. In the United States it is now routine to watch television news broadcasts that include videotaped highlights of ongoing trials, or reporters\u27 posttrial interviews with jurors who have decided controversial cases. Thus the focus of this special issue fits well with the contemporary salience and importance of law and media issues

How Juries Decide Death: The Contributions of the Capital Jury Project

In 1988 I concluded a review of what was then known about capital jury decision-making with the following observations: “[T]he penalty phase presents significant incongruities. The jurors are charged with representing the community\u27s judgment, yet the voir dire and challenge processes have eliminated significant segments of the public from the jury. Jurors have been influenced by preceding events during voir dire questioning and the trial in pivotal ways, yet they are instructed to focus only on aggravating and mitigating evidence. They are told to ignore their emotions in perhaps one of the most emotionally charged decisions they will ever make, when a human life quite literally hangs in the balance. The court\u27s assistance is limited to technical legal advice, likely to be mysterious and difficult to follow.... Whether the penalty phase jury is fully equipped to handle its burden remains an unanswered question.... [T]here are gaps in our knowledge of how the jury confronts the problem of deciding death.” Seven years later, some of these gaps are being filled by the groundbreaking work of the Capital Jury Project. Not since the Chicago Jury Project of the 1950\u27s has there been a comparable national study of jury decision-making. The Chicago Jury Project, sponsored by the Ford Foundation, was the first systematic empirical examination of the institution of the jury. It resulted in several books and scores of articles that greatly expanded our knowledge of the jury\u27s decision-making process. Harry Kalven, Jr., and Hans Zeisel, two central figures of the Chicago Jury Project, described the results of their landmark study of judge-jury disagreement in the monograph The American Jury. It was a remarkable contribution and stimulated generations of scholars to undertake empirical work on the jury. In my view, the Capital Jury Project has similar potential. Its scope is broad and its potential for enhancing our theoretical understanding of juror decision-making is considerable. It promises to illuminate the now-mysterious processes by which jurors decide on life and death. Even at this relatively early stage, it is generating data and exciting new hypotheses that other scholars are discussing and debating. Indeed, the Capital Jury Project is likely to revolutionize our thinking not only about death penalty juries but also about our system of administering capital punishment

The Twenty-First Century Jury: Worst of Times or Best of Times?

In thinking about legal developments, new research findings, and the continuing swirl of controversy over this venerable American institution, I observe the same paradoxical condition that Charles Dickens found in 18th Century London: It was the best of times; it was the worst of times. There is evidence of both the expansion of jury trial rights, yet contraction of jury trials. Research evidence indicates that juries perform well, yet the 21st Century jury confronts more complex decision making tasks and continuing doubts about its fairness and competence