« Ind. Gov't. - Garton and Borst victims of religious zealots? Or were they simply out of touch? | Main | Ind. Decisions - A number of briefs are available in legislative prayer case »
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Courts - When jurors have a say
Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune has a column today titled "When jurors have a say: Some courts are letting them actively participate in trials." Some quotes:
Lately, some courts have tried a novel idea: letting jurors actively participate instead of serving as courtroom ornamentation. Recently, the federal courts in the 7th Circuit, encompassing Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, conducted an experiment in which members of the jury sitting in civil trials were allowed to submit questions for anyone testifying. From all the evidence, justice was well served. * * *[A]llowing jurors to ask questions is a revival of an old practice that was eliminated only as lawyers became more important and the adversarial system became more rigid. As it happens, there is nothing about it that conflicts with the functioning or purpose of a trial.
Some states have already made the change. Arizona, for example, embraced it in criminal as well as civil trials as part of a 1995 package of reforms, which included such no-brainers as letting jurors take notes and consult them during deliberations. Indiana, Colorado and Florida are among the other pioneers. But this was the first time the innovation had been tried extensively in the federal system.
The presiding judge would typically inform the panelists of this option at the beginning of the trial and then invite questions when the lawyers were done with each witness. Every question had to be given in writing to the judge, who would then confer with the attorneys and decide if it was permissible. If so, the judge would read it to the witness. The lawyers could then ask follow-up questions.
The change held out the promise of making things better for the jurors--who, after all, make the greatest sacrifices but often get the least consideration. Letting them ask questions is a way of sustaining their interest and maximizing their comprehension. Denying them the option, by contrast, is an invitation to passivity and boredom.
Still, jurors exist for the benefit of the trial system, not the other way around. So the value of this innovation rests on whether it improves the processes of justice.
On that point, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly has a strong opinion. "When I was in private practice, I was against it," he says. The initial reaction among lawyers is negative, in his view, because "you like to do things the way you've always done them." But his experience as a judge, he says, "has been completely positive. I intend to use it in every civil case that I have."
The benefit for jurors, he thinks, is that it lets them clarify points they didn't understand. But it also helps attorneys: "It gives them an insight into the jury that they wouldn't get." They can then tweak their presentations to address points they may have overlooked. It's a bit like letting theater directors have a glimpse of the reviews before the show opens.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on May 25, 2006 01:54 PM
Posted to Courts in general