|
Jury trial innovations involve a variety of policies and practices designed to help jurors understand the trial better and to improve juror comprehension, performance, and satisfaction. Examples of innovations include: - allowing jurors to take notes;
- allowing jurors to submit questions to witnesses during trial;
- providing jurors with written instructions;
- instructing jurors on the elements of criminal offenses or civil causes of action at the beginning of the trial; and
- permitting jurors to discuss the evidence before formal deliberations.
There is little documentation about which states allow which types of innovations, because most are done on a case-by-case basis. Thus, even if a rule exists on point, it is not clear whether the judges routinely practice these techniques. The majority of state jury reform task forces have recommended some or all of these practices, and a number of states have conducted judicial education workshops to encourage judges to use these techniques. From a trial judge’s perspective, jury trial innovations are helpful in that: - jurors listen more carefully;
- jurors understand the evidence better;
- jurors recall the evidence better during deliberations; and
- jurors are more confident about their verdicts and more satisfied with jury service at the end of the case.
Jury trial innovations are also helpful from a systems perspective, and help to increase public trust and confidence. When jurors have a good experience in court, for example, they are more willing to serve again and will share their positive feelings with their friends and families. Some critics fear that the adversarial system is altered when jurors can ask questions and are not completely passive. Because this practice is relatively new, several questions remain. Do these techniques affect juror impartiality? Do they inappropriately wrest control of the presentation of evidence away from counsel? What procedures are used? Must jurors “be passive to be impartial”? Moreover, there is still an ongoing debate, illustrated most clearly by caselaw and court rules, regarding the appropriate role of jurors. There are compelling cases that permit various innovations. Alternatively, a few cases impact the scope of jury trial innovations. However, it is believed that the more “innovations” become institutionalized, the better equipped courts will be—with relevant caselaw, court rules, and procedures—to handle them. It is hoped that the result will be more high-quality decisions and an improved system of justice.
|
|
