This research takes advantage of an unprecedented opportunity to study the behavior of actual juries as they make decisions in the jury room. For the past quarter century or more the American civil jury has been a focus of controversy involving claims about the quality of its performance. Some critics have called for its abolition, but many more have asserted only that jury reforms are needed. The claims about jury performance and the reforms that have been introduced in various courts involve empirical assertions about jury behavior. Although a considerable body of research has developed on the jury to address these empirical assertions, it consists exclusively of simulation studies, analysis of verdicts from archives, or post-trial interviews with jurors. A direct study of jury deliberations has not been possible. Consequently, questions have been raised about the utility of this research to provide an accurate portrayal of what juries actually do and the ability of theoretical models that researchers have developed to explain the way that juries actually behave. This research project seizes upon a unique opportunity to see inside the real jury room. In order to evaluate the effect of an important and controversial jury reform in Arizona, namely allowing jurors to discuss evidence during the trial rather than only during final deliberations, the Pima County Court (Tucson) obtained permission form the Arizona Supreme Court to allow videotaping of the actual deliberations of 100 civil jury trials and to randomly assign two-fifths of the juries to a "no discussion condition." The parties and jurors give their permission for the videotaping and the tapes are confidential and can be used only for research purposes. The trials are also videotaped so that the researchers can compare jury discussion with what actually occurred at trials. Additionally, the trial judge, jurors, and attorneys answer post-trial questionnaires. This research will analyze the tapes of these actual deliberations and other measures in order to address a number of questions: What are the effects of allowing early discussion of evidence? What does the jury consider "important" evidence? Does the jury understand the evidence and how does it arrive at this understanding? How do juries handle expert testimony and respond to conflicting experts? What are the effects of judicial intructions on the jury? What is the relation of liability decisions to jury awards? How does the jury arrive at its award? Do judges have a different perspective than juries? The findings will have practical applications for developing procedures to assist the jury in its task and will provide critical insights about theoretical issues bearing on jury decision-making.
