NCJ Number
171875
Journal
Judicature Volume: 79 Issue: 5 Dated: (March-April 1996) Pages: 256-262
Date Published
1996
Length
7 pages
Annotation
Experiments with juror note-taking and question-asking have found no harmful consequences; these procedures thus deserve serious consideration as a way to assist jurors with their difficult task.
Abstract
Both studies reported here included approximately equal numbers of criminal and civil trials. Both were true experiments; each trial in both studies was randomly assigned to one of the four possible combinations of procedures: both juror questioning and note-taking allowed; juror questioning allowed and note- taking not allowed; note-taking allowed and questioning not allowed; or, neither questioning nor note-taking allowed. Once the judge had agreed to participate in the study, he/she received a packet of materials that included instructions about the particular combination of questioning and note-taking procedures to be used in their next jury trial; suggestions about how the procedures should be administered; and questionnaires to be completed by the judge, the lawyers, and the jurors after the trial. When the jurors in both studies were given the opportunity to take notes, most of them did so. Both of the studies found no evidence to support the argument of better recall in trials where note-taking was allowed, or for those jurors in those trials who elected to take notes. Juror note-taking did not increase juror satisfaction with the trial or the verdict, and it did not produce a distorted record of the case. Note-taking does not distract jurors, does not give note-takers an undue influence over non-note takers, and does not favor either the prosecution/plaintiff or the defense. Neither does note-taking consume too much time; note-taking does produce an accurate record of the trial. Regarding juror questions, they promoted juror understanding of the facts and issues and alleviated doubts about trial evidence; questions do not, however, help get to the truth. Juror questions do not alert trial counsel to particular issues that require further development; do not increase juror, attorney, or judge satisfaction with the trial or the verdict; and do not have a prejudicial effect. Overall, with the exception of the finding that juror questions promote juror understanding and alleviate their doubts about the trial evidence, there is little support for the purported advantages of juror note-taking and questions; however, the findings show no harm. Questions and note-taking can, however, assist jurors with their often complicated task. 22 footnotes