NCJ Number
114593
Journal
John Marshall Law Review Volume: 21 Issue: 3 Dated: (Spring 1988) Pages: 455-488
Date Published
1988
Length
34 pages
Annotation
The summary jury trial and its legality under Federal law are examined, with emphasis on the 1988 decision of the Seventh Circuit Court in Strandell v. Jackson County.
Abstract
The Strandell decision represents a refusal to endorse the summary jury trial as conceived and implemented by Judge Thomas Lambros, a district court judge. The Federal Judicial Conference of the United States endorsed the summary jury trial in 1984, calling it an 'effective means of promoting fair and equitable settlement of potentially lengthy civil jury cases.' Proponents argue that its discriminate use can help procure justice in a rapid and cost-effective manner. This form of trial retains the traditional jury system in a nontraditional manner, through the use of an advisory jury that hears presentations of counsel for each site and presents a verdict indicating the likely result of a full trial. The use of summary jury trials has grown rapidly, and Federal courts' authority to order them had been assumed until the Strandell decision. However, this decision held that the Federal Rules of Civil procedure do not authorize courts to order the use of a summary jury trial. Nevertheless, the Strandell decision has left open the issue of using the summary jury trial on a voluntary basis. The decision shows that the summary jury trial is not appropriate in every case, especially when pretrial settlement negotiations have reached an impasse. In addition, questions still remain regarding the legality of a consensual summary jury trial, indicating the need for legislation to amend the current requirements. 129 footnotes.