About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

79 Judicature 256 (1995-1996)
Increasing Juror Participation in Trials through Note Taking and Question Asking

handle is hein.journals/judica79 and id is 258 raw text is: Increasing juror participation in trials through note taking and question asking Experiments with juror note taking and question asking have found no harmful consequences. These procedures thus deserve serious consideration as a way to assist jurors with their difficult task. by Larry Heuer and Steven Penrod W hile critics of the jury ~have accused it of being unfit to render fair and rational decisions in complex litigation, defenders have pointed to the jury's role in legitimat- ing the authority of the judicial sys- tem.' Others have argued that jurors' problems with complex litigation are not inherent, but rather result from a failure to present trial material in an understandable fashion.' This view un- derscores the value of designing trial procedures to facilitate jurors' deci- LARRY HEUER is an assistant professor of psychology at Barnard College, Colum- bia University. STEVEN PENROD is a professor of psychology and law at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. sion-making task. Numerous possibilities for reform have been suggested. One is to restruc- ture cases to, for example, limit the amount of evidence presented or the time allowed for presenting it, elimi- nate parties, or sever consolidated ac- tions. Another suggestion is to restruc- 256 Judicature Volume 79, Number 5 ture juries. Possibilities include select- ing better educated jurors, and greater reliance on 12-person juries. A third possibility includes case management techniques. Among the possibilities in this category are allowing jurors to take notes, and direct questions to wit- nesses, providing the jury with a writ- ten copy of the judge's instructions, preinstructing the jury, using plain language instructions, offering more extensive juror orientation, and hav- ing the judge summarize evidence or The national courtroom experiment described in this article was conducted under the auspices of the American Judicature Society, and was funded by a grant from the State Justice Institute (Project No. 88-06-F-C-018). The Wisconsin courtroom ex- periment was conducted under the auspices of the Judicial Council of Wisconsin. Of course, none of this work would have been possible without the co- operation and assistance of the state and federal courtjudges who allowed us into their courtrooms, and the cooperation of the lawyers and jurors who completed lengthy questionnaires. Special thanks to Michael Mishlove for his pa- tient assistance on an earlier version of this article. 1. Sperlich, ... And then there were six: the decline of the American jury. 63 JUDICATURE 262, 275-277 (1980); Sperlich, The casefor preserving trial byjury in complex civil litigation. 65 JUICATURE 395-419 (1982). 2. E.g., Schwarzer, Reforming juy trials. 132 F.R.D. 575 (1991). 3. Readers seeking greater detail about such is- sues as sampling procedures or experimental de- March-April 1996 comment on the weight of evidence or the credibility of witnesses. This article summarizes the results of two courtroom experiments investi- gating the consequences of allowing jurors to take notes and to direct ques- tions to witnesses during trials. The data for the first experiment were ob- tained from the judges, lawyers, and jurors for 67 Wisconsin state court tri- als; the data for the second from the judges, lawyers, and jurors for 160 state and federal court trials conducted in sign and analysis are referred to Heuer and Penrod, Increasing jurors' participation in trials: A field experiment with jury note taking and question ask- ing, 12 LAW AND HUM. BEHAV. 409-430 (1988); Heuer and Penrod, Instructing jurors: Afield experiment with written and preliminary instructions, 13 LAW AND HUM. BEHAV. 231-162 (1989); Heuer and Penrod Some suggestions for the critical appraisal of a more active juy, 85 Nw. U. L. REV. 226-239 (1991); Heuer and Penrod, Juror note taking and question asking during trial: A national field experiment, 18 LAw AND HUM. BEHAV. 121-150 (1994); Heuer and Penrod, Trial Complexity: A field investigation of its meaning and its effects. 18 LAW AND HUM. BEHAV. 29-52 (1994); Heuer and Penrod,Jury decision making in complex trials, in Carson and Bull, (eds.), HANDBOOK OF PSYCHOLOGY IN LEGAL CONTEXTS (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1994). Our courtroom experiments have also ex- amined the effects of preliminary instructions, written instructions, juror orientation, special ver- dicts, and pattern instructions. Readers interested in our findings regarding these procedures are re- ferred to the above articles.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most