Civil Juries And Civil Justice

At last, here is an empirical volume that addresses head-on the thorny issue of tort reform in the US. Ongoing policy debates regarding tort reform have led both legal analysts and empirical researchers to reevaluate the civil jury’s role in meting out civil justice. Some reform advocates have called for removing certain types of more complex cases from the jury’s purview; yet much of the policy debate has proceeded in the absence of data on what the effects of such reforms would be. In addressing these issues, this crucial work takes an empirical approach, relying on archival and experimental data. It stands at the vanguard of the debate and provides information relevant to both state and national civil justice systems.

Stephen Daniels and Joanne Martin have analyzed patterns in jury verdicts in a number of substantive legal areas, including medical malpractice, products liability, and punitive damages, against the background of the larger political and academic debate over tort reform. Civil Juries and the Politics of Reform brings together and summarizes the authors' extensive empirical research on civil jury verdicts in the context of that debate. Some commentators are arguing that there is a substantial gap between the image of juries and civil justice that is driving tort reform and what is known of the reality of the civil justice system. The authors use their discussion of juries not simply to help inform the policy debate but to analyze tort reform as a public policy issue for what it tells about the policy process itself.

This book is a critique of the jury and a collection of statements about various aspects of the jury made by observers during the past 200 years. Its purpose is to help laymen think about and understand issues involving the jury.

Annotation Are jury verdicts in business trials influenced less by a corporation's negligence than by sympathy for the plaintiffs, prejudice against business, and a belief in the corporation's "deep pockets"? Many members of the public and corporate executives believe that this is so, and they feel that the jury's decision making presents serious problems for American business competitiveness and its justice system. This book -- the first to provide a systematic account of how juries make decisions in typical business cases -- shows that these assumptions are false or exaggerated.Drawing on interviews with civil jurors, experiments with mock jurors, and public opinion polling, Valerie P. Hans explores how jurors determine whether businesses should be held responsible for an injury. She finds that many civil jurors, rather than being overly sympathetic to plaintiffs who bring civil lawsuits, are actually hostile to them, that there are only occasional instances of anti-business prejudice, and that there is no evidence of the deep-pockets hypothesis. Hans concludes that jurors do treat businesses differently than individuals, but this is because the public has higher expectations of corporations and more rigorous standards for their conduct.

The right to a jury trial is a fundamental feature of the American justice system. In recent years, however, aspects of the civil jury system have increasingly come under attack. Many question the ability of lay jurors to decide complex scientific and technical questions that often arise in civil suits. Others debate the high and rising costs of litigation, the staggering delay in resolving disputes, and the quality of justice. Federal and state courts, crowded with growing numbers of criminal cases, complain about handling difficult civil matters. As a result, the jury trial is effectively being challenged as a means for resolving disputes in America. Juries have been reduced in size, their selection procedures altered, and the unanimity requirement suspended. For many this development is viewed as necessary. For others, it arouses deep concern. In this book, a distinguished group of scholars, attorneys, and judges examine the civil jury system and discuss whether certain features should be modified or reformed. The book features papers presented at a conference cosponsored by the Brookings Institution and the Litigation Section of the American Bar Association, together with an introductory chapter by Robert E. Litan. While the authors present competing views of the objectives of the civil jury system, all agree that the jury still has and will continue to have an important role in the American system of civil justice. The book begins with a brief history of the jury system and explains how juries have become increasingly responsible for decisions of great difficulty. Contributors then provide an overview of the system's objectives and discuss whether, and to what extent, actual practice meets those objectives. They summarize how juries function and what attitudes lawyers, judges, litigants, former jurors, and the public at large hold about the current system. The second half of the book is devoted to a wide range of recommendations that w

Juries are the one place where common citizens play an important part in the governmental process. But both the jury system and the American legal system itself have been under attack. Juries have been reduced in size, their selection procedures altered, and the unanimity requirement suspended. Many now question the ability of lay jurors to decide increasingly complex technical and scientific questions arising in civil suits and have advocated sharp limitations on the right to a jury trial. At the same time, the civil justice system itself has been criticized for the high and rising costs of litigation, along with the rising number of lawsuits that have strained the capacity of many courts which have effectively curtailed access to the courts. This report of a conference in June 1992, cosponsored by the Brookings Institution and the litigation section of the American Bar Association, brings together leading academic scholars, attorneys, federal and state judges, and federal and state legislative representatives and their staffs. They examine the civil jury system and offer policy recommendations to help resolve disputes in a more effective and efficient manner.

" Juries are the one place where common citizens play an important part in the governmental process. But both the jury system and the American legal system itself have been under attack. Juries have been reduced in size, their selection procedures altered, and the unanimity requirement suspended. Many now question the ability of lay jurors to decide increasingly complex technical and scientific questions arising in civil suits and have advocated sharp limitations on the right to a jury trial. At the same time, the civil justice system itself has been criticized for the high and rising costs of litigation, along with the rising number of lawsuits that have strained the capacity of many courts which have effectively curtailed access to the courts. This report of a conference in June 1992, cosponsored by the Brookings Institution and the litigation section of the American Bar Association, brings together leading academic scholars, attorneys, federal and state judges, and federal and state legislative representatives and their staffs. They examine the civil jury system and offer policy recommendations to help resolve disputes in a more effective and efficient manner. "

Report of the virtual 2021 Forum For State Appellate Court Judges, sponsored by The Pound Civil Justice Institute. Features academic research by Valerie Hans of Cornell Law School and Shari Seidman Diamond of Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law; commentary by panels of legal experts, judges, and practicing attorneys; and dialogue among 67 judges from 28 jurisdictions during small discussion groups, as well as comments from academics and attorneys in attendance .