Abstract

The Arizona Supreme Court endorsed the objective that jury trials "allow for a more demo­cratic juror experience" and "are more educational and less adversarial" and urged judges and trial attorneys to be "open to doing some old things in new ways, to be more receptive to the jurors' needs to learn better and to actively par­ticipate to a greater degree in the fact-finding process. Acting on 55 recommendations of its Committee on the More Effective Use of Juries, the court enacted new rules. But one reform--permitting jurors in civil cases to discuss the evidence among themselves before final delib­erations--proved to be more contro­versial than the others. No jurisdiction explicitly per­mitted this practice and, in fact, a significant body of case law con­demned it as prejudicial to the rights of criminal defendants. Fortunately, the court also incor­porated an evaluation of the juror discussions reform as part of its implementation plan. The National Center for State Courts conducted the evaluation. This article summa­rizes the results and the implications for other jurisdictions.

This abstract has been taken from the authors' introduction.

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2002

Publication Information

85 Judicature 237-243 (2002)

Download

Included in

Courts Commons

Share

COinS