Law Commons^™

Ears Of The Deaf: The Theory And Reality Of Lay Judges In Mixed Tribunals, Sanja Kutnjak Ivković

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This paper explores mixed tribunals, a unique form of lay participation in which lay and professional judges make legal decisions jointly. A short overview of different types and sizes of mixed tribunals around the world will be discussed first. Then, the paper will elaborate on the theoretical arguments that hypothesize about the nature and extent of interaction in mixed tribunals. These theoretical arguments, developed using the status characteristics theory, will be assessed using the evidence obtained in empirical studies of mixed tribunals. In addition, the paper will discuss other potential challenges faced by mixed tribunals. In the end, the paper …

The American Jury System: A Synthetic Overview, Richard Lempert

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This essay is intended to provide in brief compass a review of much that is known about the American jury system, including the jury’s historical origins, its political role, controversies over its role and structure, its performance, both absolutely and in comparison to judges and mixed tribunals, and proposals for improving the jury system. The essay is informed throughout by 50 years of research on the jury system, beginning with the 1965 publication of Kalven and Zeisel’s seminal book, The American Jury. The political importance of the jury is seen to lie more in the jury’s status as a one …

Four Models Of Jury Democracy, Jeffrey Abramson

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This article proposes a theory of “representative deliberation” to describe the democratic ideal that jurors seek to practice. Given its long history, the jury does not fit neatly into any one of the most familiar types of democracy, such as direct democracy, representative democracy, or deliberative democracy. However, the jury does hold together elements of all of these theories. In line with direct democracy, we select jurors from the people-at-large. In line with representative democracy, we seek to draw jurors from a representative cross-section of the community. In line with deliberative democracy, jurors talk as well as vote and seek …

Some Limitations Of Experimental Psychologists' Criticisms Of The American Trial, Robert P. Burns

Chicago-Kent Law Review

For decades, psychologists have conducted experiments that have suggested severe limitations on human cognitive capacities. Many have suggested that these results have important, and largely negative, consequences for an assessment of the reliability of the American trial. They have pointed persuasively at the disturbing number of exonerations of those convicted after trial. And some have gone on to make specific proposals for the incremental, and sometimes radical, changes in the conduct of the adversary trial. This essay places these studies, as forcefully presented by Professor Dan Simon, in a normative context, and argues that they are more powerful in suggesting …

Juror Bias, Voir Dire, And The Judge-Jury Relationship, Nancy S. Marder

Chicago-Kent Law Review

In the United States, voir dire is viewed as essential to selecting an impartial jury. Judges, lawyers, and the public fervently believe that a fair trial depends on distinguishing between prospective jurors who are impartial and those who are not. However, in England, Australia, and Canada, there are impartial jury trials without voir dire. This article challenges the assumption that prospective jurors enter the courtroom as either impartial or partial and that voir dire will reveal the impartial ones. Though voir dire fails as an “impartiality detector,” this article explores how voir dire contributes to the trial process in two …

Decision-Making In The Dark: How Pre-Trial Errors Change The Narrative In Criminal Jury Trials, Kara Mackillop, Neil Vidmar

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The jury trial plays a critical constitutional and institutional role in American jurisprudence. Jury service is, technically, the only constitutional requirement demanded of our citizens and, as such, places an important responsibility on those chosen to serve on any jury, especially within the criminal justice system. Jury research has established that, generally, jurors take their responsibilities seriously; they work with the evidence presented at trial and they reach verdicts that correlate to the narratives they develop throughout the trial. But with estimates of wrongful conviction rates as high as five percent in serious felony cases, how are juries getting it …

Preventing Juror Misconduct In A Digital World, Thaddeus Hoffmeister

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This article examines the reform efforts employed by common law countries to address internet-related juror misconduct, which generally arises when jurors use technology to improperly research or discuss a case. The three specific areas of reform are (1) punishment, (2) oversight, and (3) education. The first measure can take various forms ranging from fines to public embarrassment to incarceration. The common theme with all punishments is that once imposed, they make citizens less inclined to want to serve as jurors. Therefore, penalties should be a last resort in preventing juror misconduct.

The second reform measure is oversight, which occurs in …

Investigating Jurors On Social Media, Caren Myers Morrison

Pace Law Review

This essay proceeds in three parts. First, it examines the current state of jury investigations, and how they differ from those conducted in the past. Then, it describes the evolving legal and ethical positions that are combining to encourage such investigations. Finally, it offers a note of caution–condoning such investigations while keeping them hidden from jurors may be perceived as unfair and exploitative, risking a possible backlash from outraged jurors. Instead, I propose a modest measure to provide notice and explanation to jurors that their online information is likely to be searched, and why.

#Snitches Get Stitches: Witness Intimidation In The Age Of Facebook And Twitter, John Browning

Pace Law Review

In order to better understand witness intimidation in the age of social media, one must examine both the forms it has taken as well as the response by law enforcement and the criminal justice system. As this article points out, the digital age has brought with it a host of new ways in which witnesses may be subjected to online harassment and intimidation across multiple platforms, and those means have been used to target not only victims and fact witnesses but even prosecutors and expert witnesses as well. The article will also examine potential responses to the problem of witness …

Between The Ceiling And The Floor: Making The Case For Required Disclosure Of High-Low Agreements To Juries, Richard Lorren Jolly

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Parties are increasingly using high-low agreements to limit the risks of litigation. High-low agreements are contracts in which defendants agree to pay plaintiffs a minimum recovery in return for plaintiffs’ agreement not to execute on a jury award above a maximum amount. Currently no jurisdiction requires high-low agreements to be disclosed to the jury. This Note argues that disclosure should be required. It contends that non-disclosed high-low agreements are a type of procedural contract modifying the jury’s core adjudicative function. Drawing on theories of procedural justice, it suggests that by usurping the jury’s role these agreements undermine the legitimacy of …

Group Agency And Legal Proof; Or, Why The Jury Is An “It”, Michael S. Pardo

William & Mary Law Review

Jurors decide whether certain facts have been proven according to the applicable legal standards. What is the relationship between the jury, as a collective decision-making body, on one hand, and the views of individual jurors, on the other? Is the jury merely the sum total of the individual views of its members? Or do juries possess properties and characteristics of agency (for example, beliefs, knowledge, preferences, intentions, plans, and actions) that are in some sense distinct from those of its members? This Article explores these questions and defends a conception of the jury as a group agent with agency that …

The Future Of Emotional Harm, Betsy J. Grey

Fordham Law Review

Why should tort law treat claims for emotional harm as a second-class citizen? Judicial skepticism about these claims is long entrenched, justified by an amalgam of perceived problems ranging from proof difficulties for causation and the need to constrain fraudulent claims, to the ubiquity of the injury, and a concern about open-ended liability. To address this jumble of justifications, the law has developed a series of duty limitations to curb the claims and preclude them from reaching the jury for individualized analysis. The limited duty approach to emotional harm is maintained by the latest iteration of the Restatement (Third) of …

Death As A Bargaining Chip: Plea Bargaining And The Future Of Virginia's Death Penalty, John G. Douglass

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Deselecting Biased Juries, Scott W. Howe

Utah Law Review

Critics of peremptory-challenge systems commonly contend that they inevitably inflict “inequality harm” on many excused persons and should be abolished. Ironically, the Supreme Court fueled this argument with its decision in Batson v. Kentucky by raising and endorsing the inequality claim sua sponte and then purporting to solve it with an approach that preserved peremptories. This Article shows, however, that the central problem is something other than inequality harm to excused persons. The central problem is the harm to disadvantaged litigants when their opponents use peremptories to secure a one-sided jury. This problem can arise often—whenever a venire is slanted …

Sentencing Roulette: How Virginia’S Criminal Sentencing System Is Imposing An Unconstitutional Trial Penalty That Suppresses The Rights Of Criminal Defendants To A Jury Trial, Caleb R. Stone

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Jury Voting Paradoxes, Jason Iuliano

Michigan Law Review

The special verdict is plagued by two philosophical paradoxes: the discursive dilemma and the lottery paradox. Although widely discussed in the philosophical literature, these paradoxes have never been applied to jury decision making. In this Essay, I use the paradoxes to show that the special verdict’s vote-reporting procedures can lead judges to render verdicts that the jurors themselves would reject. This outcome constitutes a systemic breakdown that should not be tolerated in a legal system that prides itself on the fairness of its jury decision-making process. Ultimately, I argue that, because the general verdict with answers to written questions does …

Complex Litigation In The New Era Of The Ijury, Andrew J. Wilhelm

Pepperdine Law Review

This Comment argues for a comprehensive approach to legitimizing the lay jury—an approach involving education, attorney adaptation, courtroom renovations, and judicial knowledge—and a better understanding of how legal professionals can fairly and most effectively transmit knowledge to the average American. The lay jury can remain a vital, unique part of the American judicial system if the bench and bar take seriously their responsibilities and adapt to today’s new reality. Part II examines the background of three basic components of a successful contemporary trial: technology, litigation, and the jury. Part III explores how these three components have evolved in the modern …

Fiduciary Principles And The Jury, Ethan J. Leib, Michael Serota, David L. Ponet

William & Mary Law Review

This Essay argues that because jurors exercise state authority with wide discretion over the legal and practical interests of other citizens, and because citizens repose trust and remain vulnerable to jury and juror decisions, juries and jurors share important similarities with traditional fiduciary actors such as doctors, lawyers, and corporate directors and boards. The paradigmatic fiduciary duties—those of loyalty and care—therefore provide useful benchmarks for evaluating and guiding jurors in their decisionmaking role. A sui generis public fiduciary duty of deliberative engagement also has applications in considering the obligations of jurors. This framework confirms much of what we know about …

The Jury And Participatory Democracy, Alexandra D. Lahav

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Blackstone's Curse: The Fall Of The Criminal, Civil, And Grand Juries And The Rise Of The Executive, The Legislature, The Judiciary, And The States, Suja A. Thomas

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Introduction: The Civil Jury As A Political Institution, Jason M. Solomon, Paula Hannaford-Agor

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Jury Ignorance And Political Ignorance, Ilya Somin

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

What's It Worth? Jury Damage Awards As Community Judgments, Valerie P. Hans

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Diversity And The Civil Jury, Christina S. Carbone, Victoria C. Plaut

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Opening Remarks, Akhil Reed Amar

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Jury As A Political Institution: An Internal Perspective, Robert P. Burns

William & Mary Law Review

In this Essay, I will briefly describe some of the more obvious ways in which the jury has been considered a political institution. I will then discuss the senses in which we can understand the term “political” in the context of the American jury trial. I will describe the senses in which Hannah Arendt, perhaps the most important political philosopher of the twentieth century, tried to distinguish between “the political” and the “the legal” and the limitations of any such distinction. I will then turn to the heart of this Essay, a description of the ways in which the American …

Embedded Experts On Real Juries: A Delicate Balance, Shari Seidman Diamond, Mary R. Rose, Beth Murphy

William & Mary Law Review

“Experts” appear in the modern American courtroom on the jury as well as in the witness box, posing a dilemma for the legal system by offering a potentially valuable resource and an uncontrolled source of influence. Courts give ambiguous guidance to jurors on how they should handle their expertise in the deliberation room. On the one hand, jurors are told that they should “decide what the facts are from the evidence presented here in court.” By direct implication, then, jurors should not use outside information to evaluate the evidence. Jurors are also told, however, that they should “consider all of …

Juries As Regulators Of Last Resort, Stephan Landsman

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Political Decision Making By Informed Juries, William E. Nelson

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

An Exploration Of "Noneconomic" Damages In Civil Jury Awards, Herbert M. Kritzer, Guangya Liu, Neil Vidmar

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.