Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 18 of 18
Full-Text Articles in Law
The American Jury System: A Synthetic Overview, Richard O. Lempert
The American Jury System: A Synthetic Overview, Richard O. Lempert
Articles
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 …
The Internationalization Of Lay Legal Decision-Making: Jury Resurgence And Jury Research, Richard O. Lempert
The Internationalization Of Lay Legal Decision-Making: Jury Resurgence And Jury Research, Richard O. Lempert
Articles
When I first began to study the jury more than thirty years ago, the topic of this Journal issue, jury systems around the world, was unthinkable. The use of juries, especially in civil litigation, had long been in decline, to the point of near extinction in England, the land of their birth, and the live question was whether the jury system would endure in the United States. It seemed clear that juries would not continue in their classic form, as many U.S. states, with the Supreme Court's eventual approval, mandated juries of less than twelve people and allowed verdicts to …
The Jury And Scientific Evidence, Richard O. Lempert
The Jury And Scientific Evidence, Richard O. Lempert
Articles
Read court decisions and commentaries from 100, or evenfive years ago, and you will find that experts and scientific evidence were causing problems then just as they are causing problems now. I do not think that Daubert, Kumho Tire, or any change in a rule of evidence will keep expert scientific testimony from being a difficult area for the legal system. Yet we must still ask: "What are the best terms on which to deal with scientific experts, and how can weimprove the system?"
Juries, Hindsight, And Punitive Damage Awards: Failures Of A Social Science Case For Change, Richard O. Lempert
Juries, Hindsight, And Punitive Damage Awards: Failures Of A Social Science Case For Change, Richard O. Lempert
Articles
In their recent Arizona Law Review article entitled What Juries Can't Do Well: The Jury's Performance As a Risk Manager,' Professors Reid Hastie and W. Kip Viscusi purport to show that juries are likely to do a poor job in setting punitive damages, largely because jurors cannot avoid the influence of what is called "hindsight bias," or the tendency to see the likelihood of an event higher in retrospect than it would have appeared before it happened. In particular, they argue that hindsight bias and other cognitive biases undermine the utility of jury-set punitive damage awards as risk management devices. …
Make-Believe: The Rules Excluding Evidence Of Character And Liability Insurance (Symposium: Truth And Its Rivals: Evidence Reform And The Goals Of Evidence Law), Samuel R. Gross
Articles
Article IV of the Federal Rules of Evidence includes several rules that prohibit the use of specified types of information as evidence of particular propositions. Subsequent remedial measures are inadmissible to prove negligence (but admissible to show ownership, control, et cetera),' settlement offers are inadmissible to prove liability (but admissible to show bias or prejudice, or for other purposes),2 and so forth. Any exclusion of relevant evidence involves some distortion of reality in the sense that the picture presented to the trier of fact includes less information than the available total. That will be true whether the evidence is kept …
Experts, Stories, And Information, Richard O. Lempert
Experts, Stories, And Information, Richard O. Lempert
Articles
In the infancy of the jury trial, there were no witnesses. The jury was self-informing. Members of the jury were drawn from the community. It was expected that they would know, either firsthand or on the basis of what they had heard, the true facts of any disputed incident, and they were gathered together to say what those facts were. Ronald Allen and Joseph Miller, in their insightful paper, see the ideal of the self-informing jury as very much alive today. Allen and Miller tell us that jurors ideally should experience firsthand the factual information needed to arrive at rational …
Settling For A Judge: A Comment On Clermont And Eisenberg, Samuel R. Gross
Settling For A Judge: A Comment On Clermont And Eisenberg, Samuel R. Gross
Articles
Trial by Jury or Judge: Transcending Empiricism,1 by Kevin Clermont and Theodore Eisenberg, is not only an important article, it is unique. To most Americans, trial means trial by jury. In fact, over half of all federal trials are conducted without juries2 (including 31% of trials in cases in which the parties have the right to choose a jury3), and the proportion of bench trials in state courts is even higher.4 And yet, while there is a large literature on the outcomes of jury trials and the factors that affect them,5 nobody else has systematically compared trials by jury to …
Telling Tales In Court: Trial Procedure And The Story Model, Richard O. Lempert
Telling Tales In Court: Trial Procedure And The Story Model, Richard O. Lempert
Articles
There are three ways in which stories may figure prominently at trials. First, litigants may tell stories to jurors. Not only is there some social science evidence that this happens, but trial lawyers have an instinctive sense that this is what they do. Ask a litigator to describe a current case and she is likely to reply, "Our story is ... " Second, jurors may try to make sense of the evidence they receive by fitting it to some story pattern. If so, the process is likely to feed back on itself. That is, jurors are likely to build a …
Post-Trial Motions In Private Antitrust Actions: A Practitioner's Guide, John E. Rumel
Post-Trial Motions In Private Antitrust Actions: A Practitioner's Guide, John E. Rumel
Articles
No abstract provided.
The Twelve-Person, Unanimous Jury: Does It Have More Than History To Recommend It?, Richard O. Lempert
The Twelve-Person, Unanimous Jury: Does It Have More Than History To Recommend It?, Richard O. Lempert
Articles
My focus today will be on the twelve-person unanimous jury and on the contrasts between such juries and six-person juries or twelve-person juries than can return verdicts by ten-two or nine-three votes. Until about fifteen years ago, it appeared that the sixth and seventh amendments required all federal juries to have twelve members who reached unanimous verdicts, and it appeared possible that the Supreme Court would force the states to conform to the federal standards. Instead, the court did almost the opposite. It sanctioned juries as small as size six in state criminal cases and federal civil cases, and it …
The Right Of A Jury In A Criminal Case To Render A Verdict Against The Law And The Evidence, Edson R. Sunderland
The Right Of A Jury In A Criminal Case To Render A Verdict Against The Law And The Evidence, Edson R. Sunderland
Articles
One George D. Horning was convicted of the criminal offense of doing business as a pawnbroker in the District of Columbia without a license. The jury, which rendered the verdict of guilty, were told by the court, in the course of the charge, that there really was no issue of fact for them to decide; that the evidence showed a course of dealing constituting a breach of the law, and that they were not warranted in capriciously saying that the witnesses for the government and for the defendant were not telling the truth; that it was their duty to accept …
Should A Correct Verdict Be Set Aside Because The Jury Failed To Follow Erroneous Instructions?, Edson R. Sunderland
Should A Correct Verdict Be Set Aside Because The Jury Failed To Follow Erroneous Instructions?, Edson R. Sunderland
Articles
One of the common grounds of a new trial is that the verdict is contrary to law. What law is meant,--the law as it really is, or the law that was given to the jury by the court's instruction? Most cases hold to the latter view. It is the duty of the jury to take the law from the court, whether the court in so giving it is right or wrong. Hence, the jury violate their duty if they fail to follow instructions, even if the instructions are wrong, and a verdict based on a breach of the jury's duty …
Verdicts, General And Special, Edson R. Sunderland
Verdicts, General And Special, Edson R. Sunderland
Articles
The most remarkable thing about this case of Georgia v. Brailsford is that a matter of such elementary importance in the daily administration of the law, after being announced in so dramatic a way by the Supreme Court of the United States at the very threshold of its career, could have dropped into oblivion for a hundred years only to be repudiated in a way hardly less dramatic by a sharply divided court. The controversy here disclosed goes to the very heart of the jury system as it has been developed by the common law and is still almost universally …
Directing A Verdict For The Party Having The Burden Of Proof, Edson R. Sunderland
Directing A Verdict For The Party Having The Burden Of Proof, Edson R. Sunderland
Articles
The practice of moving for a directed verdict is the modern substitute for the old demurrer to the evidence. The reason for its development at the expense of the older procedure is not far to seek. The demurrer to the evidence was in the first place cumbersome and difficult to draw, for it was required to contain a full written recital of all the facts shown in evidence by the opposite party, together with all reasonable inferences favorable to the party who introduced the evidence.1 The preparation of such a demurrer usually required the expenditure of much time and labor.
Examination Of The Medical Expert, Harry B. Hutchins
Examination Of The Medical Expert, Harry B. Hutchins
Articles
The expert witness differs essentially from the ordinary witness in at least two particulars; first, in that the field of his testimony is outside the range of ordinary knowledge and experience; and, secondly, in that his testimony in the great majority of cases is in the form of opinions or conclusions that are deemed necessary for the proper guidance of the jury. It goes without saying that the 'lawyer who undertakes the examination of the expert should have such familiarity with the subject of inquiry as will enable him to develop it through the expert logically and clearly, but unfortunately …
The Physician As An Expert, Harry B. Hutchins
The Physician As An Expert, Harry B. Hutchins
Articles
Expert evidence is evidence of a scientific or technical character in regard to a matter that is outside the domain of ordinary experience and knowledge. The evidence is usually in the form of opinions or conclusions based upon facts that for the purposes of an opinion are assumed to be true, although it may be in regard to scientific facts. The expert is one who has had special training or opportunities in a particular subject that the ordinary witness has not enjoyed, and who has thereby acquired certain habits of judgment.that render his explanations and opinions in the field of …
Can The Present Jury System Be Improved?, Bradley M. Thompson
Can The Present Jury System Be Improved?, Bradley M. Thompson
Articles
There is unquestionably much dissatisfaction with the quality of the modern jury, and with the character of its work. Since juries are composed of men possessing finite intelligence, at best, we ought not to expect that their verdicts would show evidence of infinite wisdom. But the most charitable, who do not expect the impossible are often disappointed at the quality of the possible. All this goes without saying and consequently the question is often discussed, how can the system be improved?
Some Hints On Defects In The Jury System, James V. Campbell
Some Hints On Defects In The Jury System, James V. Campbell
Articles
The occasional freaks of juries have now and then led some members of the bar to speculate on the policy of doing without them entirely, and some persons no doubt think that they have strong convictions that the jury system has become useless. It is safe to say that these extreme views are altogether speculative, and not based on any careful comparison of results. Most persons who have looked into their own experience with courts and juries are ready to agree that where there is no dispute about main facts, so that the chief dispute is one of law, there …