Inside the Jury Room: Evaluating Juror Discussions During Trial

• NCJ Number: 203325
• Journal: Judicature Volume: 87 Issue: 2 Dated: September-October 2003 Pages: 54-58
• Author(s): Shari Seidman Diamond; Neil Vidmar; Mary Rose; Leslie Ellis; Beth Murphy
• Date Published: September 2003
• Length: 5 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This article reports on an evaluation of the impact of Arizona's rule that permits juror discussions during civil trials.

Abstract

In 1994 Arizona amended its Rules of Civil Procedure by adopting Rule 39(f), which provides that jurors in civil cases are to be instructed by the court that they may discuss the evidence among themselves prior to deliberations, with the provisions that the discussions must occur only in the jury room and only when all jurors are present. The jurors are instructed by the court that they must reserve judgment about the outcome of the case until deliberations officially begin. Anticipated benefits of the rule were that juror comprehension of the evidence would improve and the recollection of evidence and testimony would be enhanced; that jurors can admonish each other about reaching premature conclusions; and that jurors would be less likely to discuss the case outside the jury room. Opponents of the rule have argued that such discussion may promote the formation of premature judgments about pivotal issues; that discussions may favor the plaintiff, whose case is presented first; that discussions may spill over to juror interactions outside the jury room; and that jurors may experience more stress when conflicts arise in discussions in the course of the trial. In an effort to assess the impact of the rule, the Arizona Filming Project was planned and implemented as an experiment that included the videotaping of actual jury discussions and deliberations. Analysis of the taped discussions determined that jurors did use the opportunity to engage in substantial discussions about the trial. The interactions helped to fill gaps in knowledge, clarify misunderstandings, and improve the accuracy of evidence recall; however, jurors frequently ignored the admonition to discuss the case only when all jurors were present, and some jurors expressed early verdict positions during discussions. Overall, most of the weaknesses associated with the discussions could be reduced or eliminated with a number of small changes in procedures. Some recommendations are offered in this article.