When Arizona’s judiciary made unprecedented changes in its civil
procedures, the move called for an unprecedented study into how juries
work. Northwestern law professor and IPR faculty associate Shari
Diamond, along with Neil Vidmar from Duke University, led the investigation
that for the first time put video cameras in jury rooms. The Arizona Jury Project study was prompted by Arizona’s adoption
of Rule of Civil Procedure 39(f), a controversial innovation in the civil
court system. While other states prohibit jurors from discussing cases
until all trial testimony has ended and they have received legal instructions,
Rule 39(f) allows jurors to discuss cases during breaks throughout the
trial whenever the entire jury is present. “In terms of the innovation, there were critics and supporters who
made fairly strong claims about what effects the innovation was likely
to have,” Diamond said. “The dose of reality that we were able
to add to it suggested that neither of those pictures of the innovation’s
effect was accurate.” Critics of Rule 39(f) mostly worry that the innovation encourages jurors
to make premature verdicts and favors plaintiffs, who present first during
civil trials. Proponents of the rule argue that the opportunity to discuss
a case throughout its trial allows jurors to clarify points of confusion
or correct misconceptions that may be forgotten if put off until official
deliberations begin. The study tested both viewpoints and used data collected from videotapes
of juries operating under both traditional no- discussion rules and Rule
39(f). Investigators also examined juror questions submitted to the judge
and witnesses throughout the trial, judicial instructions on the law given
to jurors at the beginning of the trial and just before official deliberations,
and jury verdict forms. Finally, the jurors, judges, and attorneys filled
out questionnaires at the end of the trial about their own personal reactions
to the case. The data comprised 50 cases that were tried between 1998
and 2000. The study’s findings provide a unique insight into how juries operate
under traditional and innovative rules, Diamond said. Jurors who were
allowed to discuss their cases took advantage of the rule often, especially
to fill in gaps in their knowledge. While individual jurors often expressed
positions on verdicts before official deliberations began, their early
statements did not always match their final verdict decisions and no jury
arrived at a group verdict before deliberations. In addition to insights
about Rule 39(f), the videotapes also showed juries’ reaction to
judges’ instructions. “What our close, detailed study of the jury behavior shows is that
you cannot, even with well-intentioned jurors who are anxious to do the
right thing, depend on a single instruction given to them at the beginning
of the trial” to ensure all procedures are accurately followed, Diamond
said. For example, one of the study’s most significant findings was
that jurors often ignored the Rule 39(f) instruction to only discuss a
case when all jurors were present. In cases that are more specifically outlined in Diamond and Vidmar’s
article, “Jury room ruminations on forbidden topics,” published
in 2001 in the Virginia Law Review, jurors in tort trials discussed topics
such as insurance, even after receiving instructions to disregard the
subjects. Chief justices in all 50 states received a report of the findings of the Arizona Jury Project, which was funded by the State Justice Institute, the National Science Foundation, and the American Bar Foundation. Each member of the Arizona court system and the Arizona State Supreme Court also received the report. Diamond said future reports will take advantage of the unique opportunity the project afforded researchers to watch juries in action, focusing on such issues as expert testimony, juror questions, and damage awards. |
