Jury's power to determine facts

Power to decide facts

The facts the jury has the power to determine are the nitty-gritty details of the event that is the subject of the litigation. These facts pertain to what are sometimes called the “journalist’s questions:” who, what, when, where, why, and how? The jurors listen to the evidence of each party concerning a disputed fact. Then the jurors, through deliberations, determine which version of a disputed fact they find more convincing. Often, this task requires the jurors to evaluate the credibility of witnesses.

Jurors have a great deal of freedom in determining the facts. No judicial officer is present during the deliberations to impose any particular approach upon the jurors. Jurors are not required to explain the verdict, so what went on in the jury room is usually shrouded in mystery. And even if jurors are willing to talk about the deliberations afterward, the rules of most jurisdictions establish that testimony about what went on in the jury room is usually inadmissible to cast doubt on the verdict.

Nonetheless, this freedom to determine the facts is supposed to be exercised rationally by the jurors, not emotionally or arbitrarily. Thus, for example, it is impermissible to award damages to a plaintiff who has not proven the case just because the jurors feel sorry for the plaintiff. Similarly, it is impermissible for a jury to decide a case by flipping a coin, or by employing a “quotient verdict” (one arrived at by each juror writing down a damages amount, adding all the figures, and dividing by the number of jurors to get an average).

Due to the secrecy of the deliberations, it is often impossible to determine whether a verdict was arrived at rationally. But there are procedural mechanisms designed to assure, to the extent possible, that jurors use rational processes to reach rational results.

Several mechanisms available to trial judges are designed to remove from jury consideration factual issues on which the evidence is entirely one-sided, thereby avoiding irrational findings by the jury. Primary among these mechanisms are summary judgments and directed verdicts (although the Constitution forbids their use against defendants in criminal cases). Further, trial judges also have mechanisms to deal with irrational jury verdicts after-the-fact, including judgments notwithstanding the verdict, grants of new trials, and additur (ordering a new trial unless the losing party agrees to an increase in the amount of damages awarded by the jury) and remittitur (ordering a new trial unless the winning party agrees to a decrease in the amount of damages awarded by the jury).

Not only do trial judges have some power to prevent irrational jury results, so do appellate judges. Appellate courts have the power to overturn a verdict that is contrary to the great weight of the evidence (although this power does not exist as to an acquittal in a criminal case, since the Double Jeopardy Clause prevents retrial of an acquitted defendant, no matter how irrational the acquittal may have been).