Andrew Guthrie Ferguson’s ode to joy (through jury duty)

Much love for the jury has been coming of late from Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, Professor of Law at the David A. Clarke School of Law at the University of the District of Columbia. He got the ball rolling when he published his book Why Jury Duty Matters, a nifty paperback from NYU Press that was meant to inspire the public to embrace the responsibility to serve on juries (and to appreciate the institution’s constitutional foundation).

This past week, he’s made a more succinct case for loving juries in “The Joy of Jury Duty,” an essay that appeared online in the Atlantic this week. Here’s a taste of what he has to say:

The invitation to jury service is…an invitation to understand our most basic national principles…It remains an American bond. It connects people across class, national origin, religion, and race. Jury experience exists as one of the remaining connecting threads in a wonderfully diverse United States. It links us to our founding principles and challenges us to live up to them. Every time you serve as a juror, you become closer to this constitutional spirit; and every time you reflect on and appreciate these principles, you strengthen our constitutional character. That is the joy of jury duty.

That view fits with our own findings, which we reported in The Jury & Democracy, though a caveat is in order: There is a smallish minority of jurors who have a genuinely frustrating and negative experience. We recorded those in our survey, and the more extreme cases of juror misery are so striking that they can make us forget that it’s the exception, not the rule.

Moreover, many jurors have an everyday, ho-hum experience in their service. That’s the norm, in fact, when one shows up for jury duty but never gets placed on a jury, but even those seated on juries sometimes come away unchanged, particularly if they already view themselves as active in public life.

The jury is most powerful for those with the least connection to their democracy. For those citizens, it’s a powerful reminder of what it feels like to be a vital part of self-government.

New article shows how jurors decribe their service experience

My colleague Leah Sprain and I have a new article out: Sprain, L., & Gastil, J. (2013). What does it mean to deliberate? An interpretative account of the norms and rules of deliberation expressed by jurors. Communication Quarterly, 61, 151-171.

Here’s a quick summary:

To advance deliberative theory and practice, this study considers the experiences of trial jurors who engaged in deliberation. Conceptualized as a speech event, this article
inductively explores the deliberative rules and premises articulated by jurors. Jurors believe deliberation should be rigorous and democratic, including speaking opportunities
for all, open-minded consideration of different views, and respectful listening. Jurors actively consider information, but face-to-face deliberation is essential for thoroughly processing evidence. Although emotions should not influence the final verdict, participants report that emotions often reinforce deliberative norms. These results inform theory and deliberative experiences in and beyond the jury.

We always enjoy seeing when others find our work useful, and happily, this article was the inspiration for a presentation that a litigator recently gave. Here’s an example of how Ken Broda-Bahm extended our findings into a practical recommendation for litigators. We pointed out that jurors tend to take their experience seriously; they placed great emphasis on “paying attention, making the right decision, and participating in deliberation.” Jurors stressed that “deliberation should be fair, thoughtful, and objective.” Etc. From that, Broda-Bahm extracted this recommendation: “Play to These Ideals in Your Presentation.” He advises: “In addition to thanking jurors for their service or repeating what the judge has already said about their important responsibility, take a moment to add on to that sentiment in a substantive way and tie these ideals to the work jurors will tackle in the end.” He even provided this sample text for litigators:

We understand that you’re not likely to take either my word, or opposing counsel’s word, at face value. Instead, we understand — and appreciate — that you are going to want to look at everything in a way that is thorough, and careful, and fair. And we know that each of you will bring your own voice to the task. And that is how it should be, because your decision and your process are both very important.

Such words can only help convey to jurors the respect for the trial process already shared by so many judges and litigators.

Article shows that jury service generates positive attitudes toward the courts

A piece came out recently that shows how jury service can boost the public’s attitudes toward judges and juries. The article is: Gastil, J., Fukurai, H., Anderson, K., & Nolan, M. (2013). Seeing is believing: The impact of jury service on attitudes toward legal institutions and the implications for international jury reform. Court Review, 48, 125-130.

Here’s the abstract:

Improving our understanding of the jury’s impact is vital, as many nations may choose to adopt or reject the jury based partly on beliefs about how jury service shapes the civic beliefs and actions of citizen-jurors. Based on a review of previous research on juries, we hypothesized that jury service promotes public support for the larger legal process. These hypotheses were tested using a longitudinal survey of jurors from a large county in the western U.S. Results showed persistent, long-term attitude change flowing from juror service. Jurors were more confident in the jury system, perceived the criminal jury to be fairer, and indicated a greater confidence in state and local court judges than did those who had not served on juries. Moreover, effect size analysis showed that a few days of jury service can produce attitude changes comparable in effect size to those yielded by a full-throttle national Presidential campaign. These findings have tremendous significance for nations like Japan, South Korea, and Mexico, which are considering implementing juries. Our findings suggest that the reforms they implement could bolster public faith and confidence in the legal system itself.

February 22-23: symposium, “The Civil Jury as a Political Institution”, Williamsburg, VA

We just wanted to highlight an upcoming conference that recognizes the importance of juries in our larger political system. From the announcement:

This Symposium will review the various justifications for the civil jury as a political institution: as an instrument of popular sovereignty, a vehicle for applying community norms in law, a source of democratic legitimacy, and a check on government and corporate power.

Details are available online at: http://www.ncsc.org/Newsroom/News-Releases/2013/Symposium-reviews-role-of-civil-jury-as-a-political-institution.aspx

Turning Japanese (and Simplified Chinese)

Just got word today that The Jury and Democracy, the book that’s the inspiration for this blog, is being translated into “Simplified Chinese.” Yours truly confesses to not knowing there was a simple and complicated version of the language, and I’m glad to hear our book will be in the simpler of the two.

As for the Japanese translation, I have discovered that the copy-editors tasked with translating the book are very, very careful readers. They have found a few type-os (and, well, less than perfect prose) that appear in our English version. So, if you really want to appreciate the book, I guess you now need to learn another language or two.

We invite a comment or posting from anyone with current news on the new-ish juries in Japan–or what the Chinese might have in mind for this book…

A trial close to home, and a jury weighing evidence

A trial has just ended near my home–the trial of former football coach and charity founder Jerry Sandusky. It has been a crazy first year at Penn State for me because of the events surrounding Sandusky, and I have considered blogging on this trial for weeks. Now that the jury has returned a resounding guilty verdict, I will offer a few observations.

• Trials usually don’t last as long as people think they will. This was a case that was months in the making, but it was over in two weeks. As former federal justice William Dwyer argued in his book In the Hands of the People, slow trials are an artifact of judges giving too much leeway to ponderous attorneys and procedural games.
• A good jury takes its time to sift through the evidence. Years ago, jury researchers discovered that some juries were evidence-driven, while others were verdict-driven. In the latter case, juries focus on reaching the verdict, rather than walking through the evidence first. Based on what little is known at this point, the Sandusky jury appeared to consider the evidence carefully. They took a full 20 hours to deliberate, and they reviewed specific testimony, presumably to discuss points of uncertainty or disagreement.
• Returning to the main theme of this blog (i.e., the impact of jury service on the jurors themselves), it’s likely that this is an experience the Sandusky jurors will never forget. As we show in The Jury and Democracy, though, most jurors can remember vivid details from their trials long after they have concluded. The Sandusky trial may be a mega-boost of vitamin C (for civic?), however, because the jury had to consider so many charges. Our research found that the more charges in a criminal case, the larger the impact of deliberation on one’s future participation in public life (e.g., voting). The effect appeared to come from the sheer deliberative load–the number of separate judgments you had to make, each time holding a person’s fate–often even their freedom–in your hands.
• This case was one more example of how important it is to remember that what the jury sees is not what we, the public, get to see. In this case, the jury was sequestered and did not learn that one of Sandusky’s own foster children approached prosecutors to identify himself as yet another victim of abuse. Had the jury returned more not guilty verdicts, it would have been important to keep that in mind.
• Finally, speaking from personal experience as a juror, it’s often the case that a juror will recognize that a defendant is clearly guilty yet feel constrained about reaching a guilty verdict because of the nature of the evidence and the letter of the law. That is, jurors can share the public’s lay judgment about likely guilt but recognize their role of jurors asks more of them, whether guilt has been “proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” In the lead up to the Sandusky trial, it wasn’t crystal clear that the prosecution’s case was sufficient. After all, prosecutors had waited a long time to bring charges and moved only once they got testimony from another coach, whose account was questioned vigorously by the defense. In the end, the case was strong, and it is gratifying to see jury and public judgment in synch, but there are good reasons they are sometimes at odds.

 

When a hung jury is a reasoned “verdict”: The John Edwards trial

Alan Dershowitz makes a compelling case in a CNN op-ed essay that the jury in the John Edwards criminal trial got it right when they failed to reach a verdict on most charges. As he sees the case,

The judge essentially instructed them to get into John Edwards’ mind (as well as into the minds of several other actors in this political soap opera) and to determine precisely what his intention was in receiving money from friends….If [Edwards'] intention was primarily personal (to try to save his marriage and not humiliate his wife any further), then there was no crime. But if his intent was primarily political (to help him get elected president), then there may have been a crime. Precisely how many angels were dancing on the head of that pin?

This may be an example of a case that reads one way in the media and another in the courtroom. Like many other observers, I assumed this was a straightforward case of soliciting campaign contributions illegally. That political context for the case was the obvious one from my vantage point, but in retrospect, I have to admit I hadn’t thought about the personal explanation as relevant. As Dershowitz argues, the judge gave the jury a task even trained social scientists couldn’t handle–the reading of intentions in a situation fraught with ambiguity. And as for Edwards’ fate? Dershowitz writes,

Let him be relegated to his deserved place in history, and let us reserve the criminal law for real felons who knowingly violate clear criminal statutes. If Congress wants to criminalize what Edwards was accused of doing, let it enact a clear law that gives fair warning to all politicians that they may not accept any gifts, regardless of intent. I doubt Congress will pass such a law.