We, the Jury: The IADC-Backed National Jury Trial Innovations Project

Most Americans have limited knowledge of the system in the United States. When they see a mention of the or trials, more likely than not the impression is not a favorable one. They read about one group of jurors finding O.J. Simpson not guilty of murder and another finding him guilty of the same crime--never the differences between criminal and civil proceedings and varying evidentiary rules of admissibility. They receive a service summons and groan at the thought of being yanked from their daily lives to sit in a sterile environment of walls and tables, wasting time while the odds suggest they will not be selected. Should they hit the jackpot and serve on a jury, they don't view it as a win at all, but a burden of lost time and possibly lost income, while opposing lawyers seek to put on winning performances. Those who have served may feel a sense of accomplishment, but all too often it is an arduous, unfriendly system in which they have participated, with seemingly no hope of improvement in sight. A brief look back Because trials are becoming less ubiquitous, Americans have almost no background and little exposure regarding their importance to the justice system. Nor do they have an appreciation of how the system evolved to become a cornerstone of what is deemed the pursuit of justice in America. Because the American system of law is based largely on English common law, there are seemingly few indigenous roots to uncover. Ironically, when the phrase jury of our surfaces in conversation or print, it has much more meaning for the past than the present. It was in medieval times that local juries in the various shires of England were assembled from villagers familiar with the defendant, the plaintiff and the alleged offense--situations anathema to the American system. Those peers also brought to the trial their own beliefs, prejudices and understanding of the lives of those on trial. Again, this is quite the opposite of the proverbial blank mind the American juror is supposed to bring to a trial, free of prejudice or knowledge of the case or the people involved. It might be shocking for a present-day juror, let alone a judge or lawyer, to consider that in medieval England jurors were expected to investigate the facts, talk to the parties involved and discuss the issues at hand before the case. American developed from this model, dropping or picking up baggage along the way. Jurors slowly became judges of facts, rather than witnesses of facts. Eventually, the developed into a more passive panel, with no involvement in the trial proceedings. As judges, they were supposed to listen, Solomon-like, to all arguments and weigh all evidence before arriving at a just decision, with no active participation. This meant taking on a role they would never assume in real life--an unquestioning, unimpressionable, non-argumentative, silent individual making a decision normally requiring numerous questions, varying and changing impressions, constant arguing and disputing and highly vocal involvement. As Alice said on her journey through a strange land that defied normal human experience: Curiouser and curiouser. Need for change Today's process, from the time a juror is summoned until the time a verdict is reached, is not geared for jurors' needs or behavioral patterns. Rather, it is designed to accommodate the rules governing the conduct of lawyers and the admissibility of evidence. These rules often inhibit jurors from processing information or making decisions in the same way they would in their everyday lives. While many studies and conferences in recent years have dealt with the need to improve the system, a turning point occurred in June 1992 at a three-day symposium, The Future in the Civil Jury System in the United States, in Charlottesville, Virginia, sponsored by the American Bar Association and the Brookings Institution. …