The Performance of the American Civil Jury: An Empirical Perspective

Abstract

Research findings bearing on the performance of civil juries yield little support for the extreme claims charging juries with poor and irresponsible performance. Trial judges agree with jury decisions most of the time and strongly support the jury system. On the issue of negligence, there is no evidence to support the claim that juries decide cases less competently than judges and some reason to suspect that the combined judgments of jurors, enhanced through the deliberation process, may be as good or better than those that would be rendered by a randomly selected judge. Juries in medical malpractice trials, frequent targets of critics, tend to render decisions that are consistent with independent assessments of health care providers. Nor does research support claims that juries are consistently moved by sympathy for plaintiffs or against deep pocket defendants. Indeed, there is evidence that juries frequently have concerns about the motives of plaintiffs in bringing lawsuits. Even in allegedly cases, jury verdicts are often defensible when examined against the evidence that was produced at trial. There are findings suggesting that juries may hold corporations to higher standards of conduct than individuals, but these attitudes appear to not be based on anti-business sentiments. Systematic studies of jury damage awards indicate that, on average, awards are rather modest. Comparisons of compensatory awards against assessments of seriousness of injuries and economic losses indicate that awards tend to be consistent with actual losses. Some findings indicate that variability in awards may be as likely due to variability in trial evidence as to jury unreliability. Comparisons of jurors and judges with respect to assessments of pain and suffering show that their respective decision-making processes are similar. Punitive damages are awarded with much less frequency and the awards are, on average, much more modest than is commonly portrayed in the mass media. Some juries do produce outlier awards that cannot easily be justified by legal criteria, but studies of post-verdict adjustment processes, such as judicial reductions and settlements between the parties, tend to very substantially alter the awards downward, particularly the larger awards. In fact, one of the most important lessons from this review is that a main focus of researchers and policy makers should be on what is ultimately paid to plaintiffs rather than jury awards. The jury system is embedded in a larger system that has corrective mechanisms for wayward jury verdicts. Although research vindicates the jury system of the most serious claims made against it, many more issues need to be studied. Nothing in this review suggests that attempts to improve jury performance should be discouraged. Jurors themselves have complaints about testimony and judicial instructions and about lack of guidance when they are asked to decide pain and suffering and other forms of general damages. Various courts, particularly in the State of Arizona, have introduced many trial reforms to assist the jury in its task. Similar experimentation should be encouraged in other jurisdictions around the country. However, research on some of the trial procedures used in complex litigation provides a strong lesson that innovations should be carefully designed, and then evaluated through empirical research after they are implemented. The studies indicate that procedures such as bifurcating trials, joinder of parties or issues, and reductions in jury size may in fact produce results that are the opposite of what was intended. In short, experiment, but evaluate and be prepared to conclude that the reform just did not produce the expected outcome.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 22 citations exist upstream.