Six studies have examined the impact of allowing jurors to take a more active role at trial than what has traditionally been allowed. Four studies have dealt with juror note-taking (Flango, 1980; Heuer & Penrod, 1988, 1994a; Sand & Reiss, 1985), four with juror question-asking (Heuer & Penrod, 1988, 1994a; Sand & Reiss, 1985; Severance & Loftus, 1982), and one with juror anonymity (Hazelwood & Brigham, 1998). With the exception of the latter, all were conducted in the field with real juries, leading to increased confidence in their findings. Of particular note, Heuer and Penrod took advantage of a rare opportunity to conduct two field experiments with actual juries, the first in federal district court in Wisconsin (Heuer & Penrod, 1988, 1989) and the second with a national sample of cases spanning both the state and federal court systems (Heuer & Penrod, 1994a, 1994b).
Several findings have emerged from these field studies. First, jurors generally take notes when given the opportunity (Flango, 1980; Heuer & Penrod, 1988, 1994a). Second, juries that are allowed to ask questions do not generate an excessive amount (usually three or fewer) and focus on the definition of key legal terms (Heuer & Penrod, 1988; Sand & Reiss, 1985; Severance & Loftus, 1982). Third, attorneys and judges have not had a negative reaction to these procedures (Heuer & Penrod, 1988, 1994a). What is less clear is whether note-taking and question-asking influence important deliberation outcomes, such as juror- and jury-level comprehension of the instructions. Heuer and Penrod (1994a) noted that allowing jurors to ask questions was anecdotally reported to be helpful in dealing with legal and evidence complexity; Flango (1980) also reported anecdotally that jurors who took notes were more participative and influential during deliberation. No study reported an association between juror involvement and conviction/liability rates, nor would one expect this to be the case. Juror note-taking and question-asking may lead to a more thorough understanding of the evidence, but one would not expect an increased understanding to favor systematically either side at trial.

One new topic in this area involves allowing jurors to discuss the facts of the case while the trial is in progress. In 1995, the Arizona Supreme Court allowed this practice and permitted trial court judges the discretion to prevent some juries from discussing cases prior to deliberation, allowing its impact to be assessed through a field experiment (Hans et al. , 1999). Although data were still being collected and analyzed at the end of our review period, an initial report based on the questionnaire responses of trial participants suggests a mixed but generally positive reaction. Most jurors who were allowed to converse prior to deliberation reported doing so, and jurors as well as judges generally felt that predeliberation discussion produced beneficial results. At the same time, attorneys and litigants were somewhat less enthusiastic about the reform, and its impact on jury verdicts is still unclear.

Overall, despite a compelling rationale, there is little evidence addressing the impact of juror involvement, but what is available suggests that the positive impact on deliberation quality may be modest and limited to particular kinds of trials (e. g. , long or complex ones). On the other hand, there seems to be little harm in allowing jurors to be more involved, and these procedures have not tended to elicit negative reactions from attorneys and judges.

Go Back


Flango, V. E. (1980). Would jurors do a better job if they could take notes? Judicature 63, 436-443.
Hans, V. P., Hannaford, P. L., & Munsterman, G. T. (1999). The Arizona jury reform permitting civil jury trial discussions: The views of trial participants, judges, and jurors. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 32, 349-377.
Hazelwood, L., & Brigham, J. C. (1998). The effects of juror anonymity on jury verdicts. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 695-713.
Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. (1988). Increasing jurors' participation in trials: A field experiment with jury note-taking and question asking. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 231-261.
Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. (1989). Instructing jurors: A field experiment with written and preliminary instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 409-430.
Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. (1994a). Juror note-taking and question asking during trials: A national field experiment. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 121-150.
Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. (1994b). Trial complexity: A field investigation of its meaning and its effects. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 29-51.
Sand, L. B., & Reiss, S. A. (1985). A report on seven experiments conducted by district court judges in the second circuit. New York University Law Review, 60, 423-497.
Severance, L. J., & Loftus, E. F. (1982). Improving the ability of jurors to comprehend and apply criminal jury instructions. Law and Society Review, 17, 153-198.