Permitting Jury Discussions During Trial: Impact of the Arizona Reform

A field experiment tested the effect of an Arizona civil jury reform that allows jurors to discuss evidence among themselves during the trial. Judges, jurors, attorneys, and litigants completed questionnaires in trials randomly assigned to either a Trial Discussions condition, in which jurors were permitted to discuss the evidence during trial, or a No Discussions condition, in which jurors were prohibited from discussing the evidence during trial according to traditional admonitions. Judicial agreement with jury verdicts did not differ between conditions. Permitting jurors to discuss the evidence did affect the degree of certainty that jurors reported about their preferences at the start of jury deliberations, the level of conflict on the jury, and the likelihood of reaching unanimity.     

Lay Juries, Professional Arbitrators, and the Arbitrator Selection Hypothesis

Do civil juries follow the broad dictates of the law? For example,do those plaintiffs who suffer greater damages receive greaterawards? Are juries consistent? Do juries empty deep pockets?In many states automobile accidents are first tried by a professionalarbitrator and then by a jury if one of the litigants is dissatisfiedwith the outcome. How do the decisions made by professionalarbitrators compare to the decisions made by juries? This articleseeks to answer these questions by first developing a modelof arbitrator selection and then undertaking an empirical studyof 380 automobile accident cases that went through both an arbitrationand a jury trial.     

Lowering the Bar: Privileged Court Filings as Substitutes for Press Releases in the Court of Public Opinion

In the civil lawsuit against Kobe Bryant for sexual assault, the judge admonished lawyers for engaging in “public relations litigation”—the use of pleadings to attract media attention and try cases in the court of public opinion. This article examines the legal ramifications of such practices and the doctrines of law that encourage some lawyers and litigants to use pleadings as a form of press release. These include the law of republication and the fair report and judicial privileges as well as the power of judges to gag trial participants. The article concludes that courts have adequate tools to control such practices, and lawyers and public relations professionals can responsibly use court documents to communicate with the public, so long as they do not abuse the judicial process.     

Institutional Arrangements and the Dynamics of Agenda Formation in the U.S. Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals

The manner in which agenda change occurs demonstrates how institutional arrangements influence agenda priorities in the Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals. A neo-institutional theoretic perspective is employed to examine the dynamics of agenda formation in these courts. The article finds that the Supreme Court's agenda choices influence the decisions of litigants, interest groups, and lawyers to appeal certain cases to the Courts of Appeals. While the Supreme Court's agenda primarily is influenced by internal factors, it is constrained by agenda changes in the appeals courts. Critically, it is shown that these federal appellate courts exist within an endogenous system with respect to agenda formation, as both courts respond to agenda changes made in the other over time.     

Increasing jurors' participation in trials

A field experiment is reported that examines the advantages and disadvantages of two juror participation procedures: Allowing jurors to take notes during the trial, and allowing jurors to direct questions to witnesses. The presence or absence of both procedures was randomly assigned to 34 civil and 33 criminal trials in Wisconsin circuit courts. Following the trials, questinnaires were administered to judges, lawyers, and jurors. Overall, no evidence is found to support the hypotheses that juror notetaking would serve as a useful memory aid, would assist the jury with recall of the judge's instructions, or would increase the jurors' confidence in their verdict. The hypothesis that juror notetaking would increase juror satisfaction with the trial was supported. None of the findings supported the conclusion that juror notetaking was distracting, that notetakers were overly influential during the deliberations, that the jurors' notes were inaccurate, that the notes favored the plaintiff, or that the notes heightened juror disagreement about the trial evidence. It was hypothesized, but not found, that allowing juror questions of witnesses would uncover important issues in the trial and would increase the jurors' satisfaction with the trial procedure. However, juror questions did serve to alleviate juror doubts about the trial testimony, and provided the lawyers with feedback about the jurors' perception of the trial. No evidence was found to support the expectations that juror questions would slow the trial, would upset the lawyers' strategy, or that the question-asking procedure would be a nuisance to the courtroom staff. Furthermore, the lawyers did not appear overly reluctant to object to inappropriate questions from jurors, and jurors did not report being embarassed or angry when their questions were objected to.Dispute Resolution Research Center, Northwestern University     

美国民事诉讼陪审权利适用标准演变

美国民事案件的陪审权利规定在1791年批准的第七修正案中,其规定在普通法诉讼中,金额超过20美元的民事案件享有由陪审团审理的权利。但随着普通法和衡平法的合并,以及新型民事案件的出现,第七修正案规定的陪审权利该如何适用是美国民事诉讼必须面对的问题。具体的判断标准随案件类型的不同而有所不同。     

论民事诉讼法的控权法属性

民事诉讼是由法院、当事人及其他诉讼参与人参加的一种活动,以国家审判权为中心是民事诉讼法律关系的特点,以当事人诉讼权利为本位是民事诉讼法律关系的基本价值取向。民事诉讼法是典型的公法,控制和规范审判权依法行使应是民事诉讼法最基本的功能。民事诉讼法要严格控制法院的审判权,不断激活当事人的诉讼权利,充分肯定和发挥律师在监督和制约审判权行使中所起的重要作用,才能使民事诉讼最大限度地接近正义。     

Instructing jurors

This field experiment examines the advantages and disadvantages of two jury instruction procedures: instructing the jury prior to the evidence portion of the trial and providing the jury with a written copy of the judge's instructions to take with them to their deliberations. The presence or absence of both procedures was randomly assigned to 34 civil and 33 criminal trials in Wisconsin circuit courts. Following the trials, questionnaires were administered to judges, lawyers, and jurors. Overall, the findings do not provide any support for the hypotheses that written instructions would help the jurors to recall the judge's instructions, that they would increase the jurors' satisfaction with the trial, or that they would shorten the trial. The written copy did appear to reduce disputes among jurors about the judge's instructions. No evidence was found to support the notion that written instructions would reduce the amount of time that juries devoted to the evidence, that they would lengthen deliberations, or that they would place excessive demands on the resources of the court. The findings also did not support the hypotheses that preliminary instructions would assist the jurors with recall of the judge's instructions or the evidence, or that they would reduce juror confusion about the trial procedure, but did support the hypotheses that preliminary instructions would assist the jurors with following legal guidelines in their decision making and would increase the jurors' satisfaction with the trial process. No evidence was found to support the hypotheses that preliminary instructions would be an impractical procedure or that they would place excessive demands on the judge.Northwestern University     

Lawyers and Politics in France, 1814–1950: The State, the Market, and the Public

Throughout the 19th century, lawyers in France were deeply involved in political action to pursue an overriding goal–to become recognized as spokesmen for the public. This strategy governed their history; it explains their brilliant social ascent and their subsequent slow decline. As long as the conflict between state and civil society raged, lawyers were able to we assets–political mobilization, the power of the word, the esteem enjoyed by law–which had allowed them faithfully to embody public opinion in its struggle to limit state powers. From this embodiment of public ideals they derived independence, prestige, and a dominant position in the state. But when the nature of the political regime ceased to be a bone of contention and when public life became organized around other cleavages, lawyers were gradually deprived of their representative function. This marked the beginning of a social decline that became visible between the two world wars and lasted until the 1950s.     

价值视角的转变与正义模式的演绎——评美国1998年《ADR 法》

经过联邦法院对 ADR 的十几年的探索实验,美国国会最终通过了1998年《ADR 法》,为 ADR 措施的开展发放了“绿卡”。该法要求所有的美国联邦法院实施“当事人服务型”的 ADR 措施,并允许法院强制当事人参加 ADR 程序。联邦法院 ADR 部门要想成功有效的实施该法,对各种 ADR 措施进行选择,以使其与现有的法院体系相兼容,同时为当事人提供便利,首先要协调好 ADR 措施所内涵的正义模式与一直引导着法院的传统的判决型的正义模式的关系。     

陪审团在衰退吗——当代英美陪审团的发展趋势解读

陪审团审判在民事案件和刑事案件中的使用都呈逐渐减少之趋势,并且批评陪审团审判制度的声音也越来越多。但是一些原来已经废除陪审团审判的国家却正在恢复或试图恢复这一制度。陪审团审判的生命力仍然旺盛,因为它仍然在保障自由、制约国家权力方面发挥着不可替代的作用。     

‘The Enemy of God and His Church’: James Hobart,Praemunire, and the Clergy of Norwich Diocese

Praemunire was the offence of undermining royal authority. Despite its antipapal origins, by 1500 praemunire was being used to inhibit the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction within England. Notorious from 1529 as a royal instrument for intimidating the clergy, praemunire was already contentious at the beginning of the sixteenth century. Historians of the common law have identified a growing number of praemunire cases in these years; at the same time, ecclesiastical historians have detected a decline in the business of most church courts. A causal relationship has often been assumed, but not examined in the manner attempted here. A spate of praemunire cases within his diocese provoked from Bishop Nykke of Norwich a famous letter of complaint, in which he censured the attorney-general Sir James Hobart. This article examines the praemunire cases to which Nykke referred and also Hobart's role in promoting them. The interaction between church and common law courts and between their personnel and litigants is explored. New light is shed on relations between leading churchmen and common lawyers and also on the Crown's attitude to praemunire. The evidence presented deepens our understanding of the decline of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in this period.     

PRO SE DIVORCE LITIGANTS

With the increased number of divorce litigants appearing pro se in the past century, trial court judges and court personnel are forced to deal with their conflicting obligations with more frequency. It is virtually impossible for a trial court judge to ensure all litigants have a fair and meaningful trial without compromising their neutrality. Likewise, court personnel are allowed to give out legal information but not legal advice, with the definition of legal information and advice not neatly packaged into two separate and distinct categories. Consequently, changes must be made. This note suggests various solutions that can be imposed to either reevaluate the role of trial court judges and court personnel so that they no longer have conflicting obligations and are able to accommodate the needs of the pro se litigants or implement services that can provide pro se litigants with other avenues of obtaining information and assistance.     

Estimating liability risks with the media as your guide: A content analysis of media coverage of tort litigation

A content analysis of 249 articles fromTime, Newsweek, Fortune, Forbes, andBusiness Week during 1980–1990 examined the representativeness of popular media coverage of tort litigation. Compared to objective data on tort cases, the magazine articles considerably overrepresented the relative frequency of controversial forms of litigation (product liability and medical malpractice), the proportion of disputes resolved by trial (rather than settlement), the plaintiff victory rate at trial, and the median and mean jury awards. Psychological mechanisms by which biases in media coverage could affect the decision making of potential litigants are discussed. The results highlight the need for more systematic monitoring and dissemination of reliable data on tort outcomes.     

The jury: Social and psychological variables

The selection of a jury is an important phase of the American court system. Many lawyers believe that wise choices at this point may mean the difference between winning and losing a case. Various means of selecting jurors have been practiced by attorneys, and there seem to be among lawyers general impressions about the type of people best suited for certain cases. These ideas have most often concerned social, economic and psychological variables rather then genetic factors.The purpose of this study is to add to the limited body of knowledge in this area by identifying and testing some of these variables. The first step was to design a research instrument to gather significant data relating to the jury system. Included in this examination were both psychological and socio-economic information. Also incorporated into the study were questions designed to reveal the respondents’ jury backgrounds. Items sought to disclose how a juror perceived the trial, interacted with the group, and voted.After the construction of the research tool, a survey was made using it in one of the counties of Florida. The interviews were conducted to gather data regarding perceptions of jurors and test the research tool. The people chosen to be interviewed came from the venire furnished by the county clerk. Analysis of the information was conducted. Statistical tests of significance revealed that the people illustrated a strong support for the jury system and a relatively high degree of commonality of attitudes. Comparisons were done on groups voting guilty with those voting not guilty. Voting tests on national origin and income further supported a homogeneity of attitudes. The importance of a trial vote to testing jurors was found.This case study aided in identifying some plausible hypotheses and providing data on the relationship of variables that are of import to understanding the jury system.     

The “Right Paper”: Developing Legal Literacy in a Legal Self‐Help Clinic

Legal self‐help is the fastest‐growing segment of legal services in the United States, and a significant addition to the repertoire of programs aimed at opening up access to justice in the civil legal system. Few studies, however, have examined how such services work in practice. Through ethnographic research and analysis of meetings between unrepresented litigants and attorneys offering advice in a legal self‐help clinic, this article expands the empirical investigation of access to justice to consider what legal self‐help looks like in actual practice. In this article, I follow the concept of the “right paper” to analyze the process through which legal self‐help litigants develop legal literacy, including the role of lawyers in helping them to do so. The article concludes by discussing what such practices reveal about recent efforts to open up access to justice and also about the dynamics through which people come to think about law and, especially, how to use it.     

Ordinary Heroes vs. Failed Lawyers—Public Interest Litigation in Erin Brockovich and Other Contemporary Films

Although feature films may overpraise lawyers and civil courts as means of securing justice, they caricature lawyers and litigation. Analysis of Erin Brockovich (directed by Steven Soderbergh and produced by Danny DeVito, et al., 2000) reveals four motifs—two favorable and two unfavorable to public‐interest litigants and litigation—that characterize similar films in the last decades: Class Action (1991), The Rainmaker (1997), The Sweet Hereafter (1997), A Civil Action (1998), The Insider (1999), Runaway Jury (2003), and North Country (2005). These filmic populist romances promote ordinary heroines (mostly) who redeem a problematic system through common sense and everyday virtue rather than through laws, lawyers, and litigation.     

Passive Observers or Active Participants? Jurors in Civil and Criminal Trials

What was the role played by jurors in civil and criminal trials from the late eighteenth to the late nineteenth century? This article establishes that during this period, juries in Ireland played a relatively active role. It examines individual reports of civil and criminal trials and considers the nature of juror participation during this period, establishing that jurors frequently questioned witnesses, berated counsel, interrupted judges, demanded better treatment and added their own observations to the proceedings. This article compares the nature and level of interaction from different categories of jury – civil and criminal, common and special. It asks why Irish jurors continued to be active participants until late in the nineteenth century, and how the bench and bar received their input. It also suggests that English jurors may have played a more active role during this period than previously thought. Finally, the article considers some possible reasons for the silencing of Irish jurors by the late nineteenth century.     

What are Tort Awards Really Like? The Untold Story from the State Courts*

The popular press frequently reports exorbitant money damage awards by juries. These stories cause paroxysms in the business community because juries are viewed as favoring plaintiffs over corporations. A growing body of literature has examined aspects of this complex issue, but within a limited framework. Prior studies, which are based on data from the early 1980s or before, tend to focus on federal court cases, primarily product liability and medical malpractice torts, only jury verdicts, and single jurisdictions when state courts are included. The objective of this article is to contribute to the literature by examining all tort cases reaching either a bench or a jury trial verdict during a sample period in 1989 in twenty-seven general jurisdiction trial courts. Research is organized around three basic questions. What do torts look like? Do particular types of plaintiffs/defendants gain a higher percent of favorable verdicts? When plaintiffs are awarded money damages, what is the importance of litigant status, while controlling for other factors, in influencing the size of the awards? The article begins by describing the landscape of torts - the typical configurations of the contending litigants, the composition of torts by area of law, the types of trials, verdict patterns, and the average size of awards. Basic contours of the landscape reflect the elemental facts that individuals generally are plaintiffs in these cases and the opposite tendency of corporations, insurance companies, and governments to appear as defendants. Next a model is outlined and tested to determine how strongly different possible determinants shape the size of tort awards in the twenty-seven state trial courts. Does the size of the award depend on the configuration of the parties after taking into account the type of tort, the type of trial, the length of disposition time, and the state in which the court is located? The results indicate that the group of variables representing the various pairing of litigants accounts for most of the explained variation in award size. These findings support the notion that the status of the litigants is an important factor in influencing awards. Because the variables representing some of the individual states are also significant, the evidence also suggests no single, uniform pattern applies across all the courts. Instead, the state context shapes the basic parameters of plaintiff and defendant success.