Improving trials

Suggested improvements to trials fall into four categories:

1.  Using jurors’ time more efficiently:

• Requiring trials to start on time and use the whole trial day with minimal interruptions.
• Assuring that settlement avenues have been apparently exhausted before seating a jury.
• Requiring all motion arguments to be made at times when the jury is not waiting.
• Coordinating with jailers to minimize juror waiting for a criminal defendant to be delivered to court.
• Staggering juror reporting times and permitting jurors to be on a 2-hour call by beeper or cell phone.
• When jurors are kept waiting, informing them of the reason.
• Setting and enforcing time limits on the trial or portions of it.
• Requiring parties to agree upon summaries of depositions.
• Not keeping jurors waiting while the instructions are finalized.

2.  Providing jurors better ways to relate to evidence by making them feel less like passive (often overwhelmed) observers and more like active learners.

• Allowing jurors to take notes during the trial. For the law of each state and federal circuit regarding juror note taking, click here.
• Allowing jurors to write questions for the judge to ask of witnesses. For the law of each state and federal circuit regarding jurors asking questions of witnesses, click here.
• Allowing jurors to discuss the case at points before the final deliberations.
• Providing jurors with notebooks for complex cases, which could include copies of exhibits, a glossary of terms, jury instructions, and other items helpful for comprehension. For the handful of states that currently have statutes or rules concerning juror notebooks, click here.
• Rearranging the order of trial in complex cases, as by permitting mini-summations by attorneys at points in the case, allowing opposing experts to be examined one after the other, etc

• There has been some social science research on allowing jurors to take notes, ask questions of witnesses, and discuss the case while the evidence phase of the trial is in progress.  A 2001 summary of that research concluded: “[W]hat [little] evidence 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.”  Dennis J. Devine, et al., Jury Decision Making: 45 Years of Empirical Research on Deliberating Groups, 7 Psychology, Pub. Pol. & L. 622 (2001).

• A more recent study considered whether mock jurors could better understand complex mitochondrial DNA evidence when allowed one or more of four innovations (note taking, juror questions, Mitochondrial DNA checklists, and notebooks). Postdeliberation, jurors allowed to use checklists and notebooks demonstrated significantly higher understanding of the DNA evidence than those not allowed these tools. No effect was found for note-taking or questioning used alone. B. Michael Dann, et. al., Can Jury Trial Innovations Improve Juror Understanding of DNA Evidence?, NIJ J., Nov. 2006.

3.  Improving the process of giving and the content of jury instructions:

• Giving case-specific jury instructions at the beginning of the case
• Giving jury instructions before attorney summations, rather than after
• Providing jurors with written copies of the instructions
• Assuring that instructions are written in plain English, not “legal-ese.” For more discussion of this topic, click here. 

4.  Improving deliberations

• Provide jurors with suggestions concerning how to conduct the deliberation process. Behind Closed Doors: A Guide for Jury Deliberations is a free pamphlet designed to assist jurors.
   
• Responding meaningfully to questions posed to the judge by jurors during deliberations

Jurors after the verdict

Here are common suggestions relating to this last stage of the process:

• Providing a standard questionnaire to elicit juror feedback on how the process can be improved
• Providing mechanisms for dealing with juror stress, particularly for lengthy and/or disturbing cases (for examples, click here).
• Providing meaningful thanks for service