Law Commons^™

Expanding The Search For America's Missing Jury, Richard Lorren Jolly

Michigan Law Review

A review of Suja A. Thomas, The Missing American Jury: Restoring the Fundamental Constitutional Role of the Criminal, Civil, and Grand Juries.

Responding To Independent Juror Research In The Internet Age: Positive Rules, Negative Rules, And Outside Mechanisms, Robbie Manhas

Michigan Law Review

Independent juror research is an old problem for jury trials. It invites potentially prejudicial, irrelevant, and inaccurate information to guide jury decisionmaking. At the same time, independent juror research compromises our adversarial system by preventing parties from responding to all the evidence under consideration and obfuscating the record on which the jury’s decision is made. These threats have only increased in the internet age, where inappropriate sources of information are ubiquitous and where improper access is hard to detect. Nevertheless, courts and parties continue to engage in the same inhibitory measures they have employed for decades. This Note argues for …

Can We Calculate Fairness And Reasonableness? Determining What Satisfies The Fair Cross-Section Requirement Of The Sixth Amendment, Colleen P. Fitzharris

Michigan Law Review

The Impartial Jury Clause of the Sixth Amendment requires that the venire from which the state and the defendant draw a twelve-person petit jury be a fair cross-section of the community. The Supreme Court announced a three-prong test in Duren v. Missouri to help courts determine whether there has been a Sixth Amendment violation: (1) whether a distinctive group in the community was excluded; (2) whether the venire was not a fair and reasonable representation of the county population as a whole; and (3) whether that underrepresentation was the result of systematic exclusion. When evaluating the second prong, courts routinely …

Doctors & Juries, Philip G. Peters Jr.

Michigan Law Review

Physicians widely believe that jury verdicts are unfair. This Article tests that assumption by synthesizing three decades of jury research. Contrary to popular belief the data show that juries consistently sympathize more with doctors who are sued than with patients who sue them. Physicians win roughly half of the cases that expert reviewers believe physicians should lose and nearly all of the cases that experts feel physicians should win. Defendants and their hired experts, it turns out, are more successful than plaintiffs and their hired experts at persuading juries to reach verdicts contrary to the opinions of independent reviewers.

The Indulgence Of Reasonable Presumptions: Federal Court Contractual Civil Jury Trial Waivers, Joel Andersen

Michigan Law Review

Large institutions such as banks, franchisers, international companies, and lessors distrust juries' ability to properly resolve disputes and award reasonable damages. As a result, these and other actors have attempted to limit juries' potential influence on the contracts to which they are parties. They have done so through contractual jury trial waiver clauses in these agreements. The Seventh Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the jury trial right. Whether the right is determined to exist in an individual instance is a matter of federal common law, which merely preserves the jury trial right as it existed when the Amendment was adopted …

Plain Meaning, Practical Reason, And Cuplability: Toward A Theory Of Jury Interpretation Of Criminal Statutes, Darryl K. Brown

Michigan Law Review

In one of the few existing recordings of American juries deliberating in an actual criminal case, Wisconsin v. Reed, we observe jurors struggling with how they should apply a statute in a case in which the facts are not in real dispute. The defendant is charged with felon in possession of a gun, and all agree that he has a felony record and owned a pistol until he turned it over to the police upon their request. The statute contains three elements. The defendant must (a) have a felony conviction, (b) have possessed a gun, and (c) have known that …

Religion-Based Peremptory Challenges After Batson V. Kentucky And J.E.B. V. Alabama: An Equal Protection And First Amendment Analysis, Benjamin Hoorn Barton

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that under Batson, J.E.B., the First Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause, religion-based peremptory challenges are unconstitutional. This Note asserts that the analysis of governmental religious discrimination, such as a peremptory challenge, is the same under either the First Amendment or the Equal Protection Clause because both apply strict scrutiny to purposeful government discrimination.

Part I examines Batson and J.E.B. in greater detail and states a model for analyzing discriminatory peremptory challenges in which such challenges are treated as intentional governmental discrimination subject to heightened scrutiny. Part II argues that under the First Amendment, intentional governmental …

Judging The Jury, Eric M. Acker

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Judging the Jury by Valerie P. Hans and Neil Vidmar

Equity, Due Process And The Seventh Amendment: A Commentary On The Zenith Case, Patrick Devlin

Michigan Law Review

The seventh amendment to the United States Constitution requires that "[i]n Suits at common law . . . the right of trial by jury shall be preserved." What exactly is a suit at common law? When the amendment was enacted in 1791, there was no law that was common to all the states. In 1812 Supreme Court Justice Story, in a Circuit Court ruling, held that the common law alluded to was the common law of England, "the grand reservoir of all of our jurisprudence." This means that when today an American judge has to decide whether in any set …

Controlling Jury Damage Awards In Private Antitrust Suits, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note takes the position that the courts should better control jury manipulation in private antitrust actions. Part One suggests that manipulation is likely in such actions, and argues that this manipulation off ends the legislative judgment reflected in the trebling provision without leading to more equitable results. Part Two presents two complementary proposals to control jury manipulation of treble damage awards. These proposals aim to induce the jury to return accurate awards based on the economic loss actually suffered by the plaintiff.

Civil Juries And Complex Cases: Let's Not Rush To Judgment, Richard O. Lempert

Michigan Law Review

When a fundamental constitutional right is at issue, it is admittedly difficult for the Court to treat the lower courts as laboratories. But if the constitutional right turns on empirical questions, it is better to wait for knowledge than to rush toward a judgment that may later be shown to have vitiated an important right across all circuits. If the Court feels compelled to resolve the conflict, the better decision - if empirical issues are seen as central - is to sustain the right to jury trial regardless of complexity. Sustaining that right will allow courts and researchers to collect …

Probability Theory Meets Res Ipsa Loquitur, David Kaye

Michigan Law Review

This Article uses probability theory normatively in an effort to clarify one aspect of the famous tort doctrine known as res ipsa loquitur. It does not urge that jurors be instructed in probability theory or be equipped with microprocessors. Rather, it seeks an accurate statement of the res ipsa doctrine in ordinary language. In particular, this Article will show that the conventional formulation of the doctrine is misleading at best, and should be replaced with a more careful statement of the conditions warranting the res ipsa inference. To this end, Section I briefly surveys the legal doctrine, or, more precisely, …

Gleisser: Juries And Justice, Charles S. Desmond

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Juries and Justice by Marcus Gleisser

Practice And Procedure - Reservation Of Decision On Motion For Directed Verdict As Means Of Avoiding Unnecessary New Trials

Michigan Law Review

What may be done to remedy the situation if a jury brings in a verdict in favor of a party against whom a verdict should have been directed? This question becomes pertinent in view of the fact that judges, while hard pressed by counsel in the heat of trial, frequently wrongfully deny a motion for directed verdict and submit the case to the jury. One obvious remedy is the granting of a new trial by the trial judge, or by an appellate court after reversal. But this practice has proved eminently unsatisfactory, for it submits the aggrieved party to the …