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

The Jury\u27s Political Role: To See With Their Own Eyes

Under what circumstances, if any, is it right for juries to ignore the dictates of law in arriving at their verdicts? The political role of the jury has come into the spotlight recently. Legal scholars have labeled as jury nullification the refusal of juries to apply the law when they believe that to follow the letter of the law would result in injustice. Jury nullification is actually a form of jury equity, the practice of deciding cases in line with community notions of justice and fairness. On May 17, 1985, a jury acquitted eight anti-apartheid demonstrators charged with trespassing at the South African Consulate in Chicago. In Toronto, Dr. Henry Morgenthaler was also acquitted by a jury of his peers last November on charges that he violated Canadian laws regulating abortions. Jury nullification may constitute a strong repudiation of the law, as in the Morgenthaler case, or may be present in a weaker version, when juries take a merciful view of the facts or interpret the law generously, as in the anti-apartheid case

Inside the Black Box: Comment on Diamond and Vidmar

It is an honor to be invited to comment on the first publication of the Arizona Jury Project, a study of Arizona juries that includes videotaping and analysis of jury room discussions and deliberations. It is a remarkable and unique project, made possible by an unusual confluence of people, places, and events. In an insightful opinion some years ago, United States Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis observed that [i]t is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country. The state of Arizona has taken just such a bold path in experimenting with its jury system. Guided by the leadership of its judiciary and enabled by the openness of its legal practitioners, Arizona has been at the fore-front of jury reform. An Arizona Supreme Court committee headed by Judge B. Michael Dann published an influential report in 1994, Jurors: The Power of 12, proposing a host of changes to the state\u27s jury system. Most of these recommended changes were adopted. What is more, the judiciary and state bar have welcomed social scientific research on how these changes affect the jury system, providing the country with a living laboratory for jury reform. The scientific merit of the Arizona Jury Project was enhanced by the readiness of two of the nation\u27s top sociolegal scholars, Professors Shari Seidman Diamond and Neil Vidmar, to serve as research directors. These two scholars have long inspired me with their zest for social science study of the law. This enthusiasm, coupled with the high quality of their research and writing, has led to many impressive research contributions. The Arizona Jury Project promises to be another major achievement for both of these scholars and a significant milestone in the study of the American jury. Many benefits are sure to come from looking inside the black box of jury decisionmaking. By examining what goes on in the jury room in a systematic way, Diamond and Vidmar will help us to assess whether current theories and empirical conclusions about juror and jury decisionmaking, based on indirect research methods, apply to actual jury decisions. They can help us determine whether legal rules, such as the evidence rules they examine in their paper in this symposium, adequately guide the jury process. They can assess how jury reform works in Arizona and thus provide significant information to policymakers contemplating change. In this article, I will explore the potential contributions of the Arizona Jury Project. After a discussion of the project\u27s design and the unique methodological challenges faced by the researchers, I will assess their observations about how jurors deal with the forbidden topic of insurance. I will then consider their suggested reform, and the collaborative instructional approach they advocate