Abstract
In the past decade, the Arizona judiciary has led the country in jury innovations. One unique innovation instructs jurors that they are permitted to discuss trial evidence among themselves in the jury room during trial recesses as long as all jurors are present. This change from traditional jury procedures, in which jurors are admonished to avoid all case discussion until the end of the trial, stimulated a variety of opposing claims about the likely effects of permitting discussion during trial. This Article describes the experiment carried out to evaluate the claims. For the fifty civil jury trials in the experiment, all juror discussions during trial, jury deliberations, and the trial itself were videotaped. This Article compares the opposing claims made about the likely effects of discussion with the actual behavior of the juries, revealing the wide-ranging use that jurors made of the opportunity to discuss the case. Based on the results, several adjustments in procedures are suggested.
How to Cite
45 Ariz. L. Rev. 1 (2003)
29
Views
14
Downloads