Jury Selection Trial and Deliberations Resource Guide

NCSC > Jury > Jury Selection, Trial and Deliberations > Resource Guide

Resource Guide

Contact an expert

Jury trial innovations involve a variety of policies and practices designed to help jurors understand the trial better and to improve juror comprehension, performance, and satisfaction. Examples of innovations include:

allowing jurors to take notes;
allowing jurors to submit questions to witnesses during trial;
providing jurors with written instructions;
instructing jurors on the elements of criminal offenses or civil causes of action at the beginning of the trial; and
permitting jurors to discuss the evidence before formal deliberations.

There is little documentation about which states allow which types of innovations, because most are done on a case-by-case basis. Thus, even if a rule exists on point, it is not clear whether the judges routinely practice these techniques. The majority of state jury reform task forces have recommended some or all of these practices, and a number of states have conducted judicial education workshops to encourage judges to use these techniques.

From a trial judge’s perspective, jury trial innovations are helpful in that:

jurors listen more carefully;
jurors understand the evidence better;
jurors recall the evidence better during deliberations; and
jurors are more confident about their verdicts and more satisfied with jury service at the end of the case.

Jury trial innovations are also helpful from a systems perspective, and help to increase public trust and confidence. When jurors have a good experience in court, for example, they are more willing to serve again and will share their positive feelings with their friends and families.

Some critics fear that the adversarial system is altered when jurors can ask questions and are not completely passive. Because this practice is relatively new, several questions remain. Do these techniques affect juror impartiality? Do they inappropriately wrest control of the presentation of evidence away from counsel? What procedures are used? Must jurors “be passive to be impartial”?¹

Moreover, there is still an ongoing debate, illustrated most clearly by caselaw and court rules, regarding the appropriate role of jurors. There are compelling cases that permit various innovations. Alternatively, a few cases impact the scope of jury trial innovations. However, it is believed that the more “innovations” become institutionalized, the better equipped courts will be—with relevant caselaw, court rules, and procedures—to handle them. It is hoped that the result will be more high-quality decisions and an improved system of justice.

¹ See J. Anderson’s dissent in State v. Costello, C7-00-436 (June 13, 2002).

Links to related online resources are listed below. Non-digitized publications may be borrowed from the NCSC Library; call numbers are provided.

Featured Links

Center for Jury Studies

The Center for Jury Studies is dedicated to facilitating the ability of these citizens to fulfill their role within the justice system and enhancing their confidence and satisfaction with jury service by helping judges and court staff improve jury management. To do so, the Center engages in cutting-edge research to identify practices that

- promote broad participation by the community in the jury system
- respect jurors' contributions to the justice system
- utilize jurors' time effectively and make reasonable accommodations for their comfort and privacy, and
- provide jurors with the decision-making tools necessary to make informed and fair judgments in the cases submitted to them.

See the website to learn more.

Recipient of First G. Thomas Munsterman Award for Jury Innovation The Munsterman Award recognizes states, local courts, organizations, or individuals who have made significant improvements or innovations in jury procedures, operations, and practices.

Jur-E Bulletin Weekly electronic newsletter published by the Center for Jury Studies.

Jury Trial Management: Focusing on Jury Selection and Jury Deliberations This curriculum was prepared to assist judicial educators to develop and present programs that ultimately improve the management of jury trials in their home jurisdictions.

NACM Justice Achievement Awards

A compilation of the National Association for Court Management's Justice Achievement Awards from 2000-2011.

Anonymous Juries and Juror Privacy

McAree, Dee. Anonymous Juries Raise Concern; Secrecy Grows More Common. (December 2002). National Law Journal

Doris, Tony. Juror Safety or the First Step toward Secret Trials?. (November 2002). Miami Daily Business Review

Hannaford, Paula. Making the Case for Juror Privacy: A New Framework for Court Policies and Procedures. (2001). Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts

Secret Justice: Anonymous Juries. (Fall 2000). Includes a survey of the law in federal and state courts.

Citizen Education Programs

Citizen Jury Project. Fund for Modern Courts In New York, the Fund for Modern Courts promotes jury service and reforms through its Citizens Jury Project

Juror Guide . Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts is engaged in promoting jury service and reform in Pennsylvania through its Juror Guide.

CSI Effect

Shelton, Donald E. et al. A Study of Juror Expectations and Demands Concerning Scientific Evidence: Does the CSI Effect Exist?. (2006). Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 9, no. 2: 331

Shelton, Donald E. Juror Expectations for Scientific Evidence in Criminal Cases: Perceptions and Reality about the "CSI Effect" Myth. (2009).

Thomas M. Cooley Law Review, Volume 2, Number 1

Decision Making

Nicole L. Waters, et. al. A Jury of One: Opinion Formation, Conformity, and Dissent on Juries. (2008). This article aims to shed an empirical light on the process of opinion formation and change in juries, using questionnaire data and case information collected as part of a National Center for State Courts project on hung juries.

Solomon, Samuel H. How Jurors Make Decisions: A Practical and Systematic Approach to Understanding Jury Behavior. (May 2002). New York: DOAR: Litigation Consulting.

Juries In-depth: Jury Decision Making. (2004). Chicago: AJS Examines research on decision making, hung juries, juror misconduct, and alternate jurors. Includes links to other resources on the AJS and other sites.

Innovations

Dann, Michael B., et al. Can Jury Trial Innovations Improve Juror Understanding of DNA Evidence?. (October 2006). This is a mock jury study and was published in the National Institute of Justice. It examines juror note taking, juror questions and juror notebooks and how these innovations affect juror comprehension of Mitochondrial DNA evidence.

Munsterman, G. Thomas et al. Jury Trial Innovations. (1997). Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts Summarizes jury trial innovations, including note-taking, orientation, and other practices aimed at improving jury service.

Mize, Gregory E., and Christopher J. Connelly. Jury Trial Innovations: Charting a Rising Tide. (Spring 2004). Court Review 41, no. 1: 4 This article highlights efforts around the U.S. and explains the National Program to Increase Citizen Participation in Jury Service through Jury Innovations.

Dann, B. Michael, and Valerie P. Hans. Recent Evaluative Research on Jury Trial Innovations. (Spring 2004). Court Review 41, no. 1: 12 Empirical studies in the form of mock juries, field experiments, and non-experimental studies on note-taking, juror questions, and other innovations are summarized.

Jury Instructions

Paula L. Hannaford, et. al. Contemporary Pattern Jury Instruction Committees: A Snapshot of Current Operations and Possible Future Directions. (2008). This report is based on a survey that gathered information about state and federal PJI committees. It consisted of 45 questions drafted to provide information pertaining to committee composition and scope, institutional support and sponsorship, committee operations, pattern jury instruction publication and distribution, and operational and procedural challenges.

Tiersma, Peter M. Jury Instructions in the New Millennium. (Summer 1999). Court Review 36, no 2: 28 Offers linguistic analysis and suggests improvements to increase juror comprehension of instructions.

Chief Judge Donald E. Shelton. "No Googling- No Texting" Jury Instruction Video. (2010).

The embedded video shows Chief Judge Donald E. Shelton of the Washtenaw Trial Court in Ann Arbor, Michigan delivering a “no googling, no texting” instruction to jurors. It is an excellent illustration of how to give this type of instruction in a way that is comprehensible and dignified for the jury. Click on the arrow below to view the video.

Bissett, Jan, and Margi Heinen. What Is the Law? Finding Jury Instructions. (2000). Law Library Resource Xchange

Juror Note Taking

Note Taking by Jurors: Final Report. (August 2008). This report on juror note taking is from Pennsylvania and it clarifies the current position in that state concerning this issue.

Juror Privacy

Paula L. Hannaford Safeguarding Juror Privacy. (2001). This article was originally published in Judicature and it discusses the issues surrounding juror privacy.

Juror Questions

Diamond, Shari Seidman, Mary R. Rose, and Beth Murphy. Jurors` Unanswered Questions. (Spring 2004). Court Review 41, no. 1: 20 The authors examine advantages and disadvantages of juror questions; the Arizona filming project; types of questions submitted by jurors; types of questions disallowed; and juror reactions to disallowed questions.

Anderson, Lelenad Practice Tips for handling Juror Questions. (June 2004). This is a list of suggestions for judges on fielding juror questions, based on the available research.

Questions by Jurors Allowed. (February 2003).

This is an open letter by Chief Judge Chad C. Schmucker of the Jackson County Circuit Court on his position as to jurors asking questions.

Report of the Conference of Civil Presiding Judges on its Evaluation of Juror Question-Asking Procedures. (January 2006). Trenton, NJ. In New Jersey, R. 1:8-8(c) governs juror questions to witnesses in civil cases. After the rule was implemented, judges raised procedural questions as to its use. In response, the AOC's Jury Management Unit and Conference of Civil Presiding Judges surveyed judges and evaluated procedures. The evaluation report addresses issues raised and reviews responses from judges and attorneys regarding the practice. A pilot program report from 2001 and supporting documentation are also available.

Lucci, Eugene A. The Case for Allowing Jurors to Submit Written Questions. (October 2005). This article examines the history of jurors asking questions of witnesses and argues that it improves juror decision making.

Juror Stress

Tooher, Nora Lockwood Courts Are Increasingly Recognizing Juror Trauma and Offering Help. (June 2007). Journal Record Examines the need for and use of counseling for jurors in high-profile and/or difficult cases.

McAree, Dee. Reaching out to Juries Rocked by Evidence. (October 2004). National Law Journal

Casey, Pamela. Through the Eyes of the Juror: A Manual for Addressing Juror Stress. (1998). Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts Outlines stressors connected to various aspects of jury duty, from summons to post-trial debriefing. Includes handy checklist to help courts assist jurors during each stage.

Preemptory Challenges

Johnson, Eric C. Public Law Research Institute Report: Proposed Reforms to the Criminal Justice System as a Reaction to the Simpson Verdict. (1994). Public Law Research Institute Provides brief discussion of notorious trials and list of suggested reforms, including eliminating peremptory challenges.

Report of the Special Supreme Court Committee on Peremptory Challenges and Jury Voir Dire. (2005). Trenton, NJ: Committee Recommendations cover standards, voir dire, challenges for cause, training, etc.

Jackson, Stacey S. The Use of Peremptory Challenges for Discrimination in the Administration of Justice: Annotated Bibliography. (Fall 1998). Lists materials relating to peremptory challenges. Includes caselaw and legislation.

Voir Dire

Approved Standards for Jury Selection. (2006). Trenton, NJ: Office of Trial Court Services Selection standards include model voir dire questions for civil and criminal cases.

Mize, Gregory E. On Better Jury Selection -- Spotting UFO Jurors Before They Enter the Jury Room. (Spring 1999). Court Review 31, no. 1: 10

Donahue, Honorable Gary. Voir Dire Demonstration. (September 2005). Ninth National Court Technology Conference, Seattle, Washington Voir Dire instructions for potential jurors.