 |
Association Publications
Delaware Task Force on the More Effective Use of Juries Report on the Juror Questionnaire StudyOne important function of the Task Force's work was to solicit systematic information from jurors themselves about their expectations, experiences, and reactions to jury duty in Delaware. Therefore we undertook a survey of jurors who had served on a trial jury. The development of the questionnaire was a collaborative process. For basic items about jury duty, we drew on questionnaires that had already been developed by the staff of the National Center for State Courts and by other jury researchers.1 As a group, we decided which additional matters were most important to explore for the work of our Task Force. There was considerable input from all of the members of the Task Force on initial and revised drafts of the juror questionnaire and a companion judicial questionnaire. Methodology of the Study Collection of information from jurors took place in May and early June of 1996. In New Castle County, which uses a one day/one trial system, judges and jurors from cases that began or ended between May 1, 1996 and June 6, 19962 were asked to fill out a questionnaire right after their jury trial concluded. In Kent and Sussex Counties, jurors are called for two-week panels. The study period included two separate panels each from Kent and Sussex counties. As in New Castle County, jurors who served on trials were asked to fill out the questionnaire immediately after their case had concluded. In all three counties, the bailiffs were the individuals given the prime responsibility for distributing and collecting the trial jurors' and judges' questionnaires. New Castle County bailiffs met with the Chair and members of the Task Force for a training session, while the bailiffs in Kent and Sussex Counties received directions from the jury administrator. The method was as follows: At the end of a jury trial, the bailiff distributed the questionnaires to the trial jurors, alternates, and judge. The jurors and alternates filled out the questionnaires and they were placed in a large manila envelope. The judge's questionnaire was placed in a small white envelope, sealed by the judge, and placed together with the juror questionnaires in the large manila envelope, which the bailiff sealed and returned to the Jury Office. On a few occasions, circumstances did not permit the jurors to fill out the questionnaires immediately, so they completed the questionnaires at home and mailed them back to the Jury Office. We were able to obtain responses from judges and jurors in a total of 36 cases during the test period. That represented the majority of trials during the period. Several trials continued past the end date for data processing, and thus could not be included. In addition, in several cases, questionnaires were not distributed for unknown reasons. A total of 432 trial jurors, including 37 alternates, returned completed questionnaires. Assuming that jury trials included 12 jurors per case, we estimated the juror participation rate at 91%. Jurors who were called for jury duty but never served on a trial also readily complied with the request to complete the questionnaires. A total of 370 jurors in this category completed questionnaires. Given its limited financial resources, the Task Force concluded that its top priority was the full analysis of information from jurors who had served on trials. Therefore, the data from these additional 370 jurors were not analyzed, and are not included in this Report. Description of the Jury Trials included in the Study: Information from the Judges' Questionnaires Of the 36 jury trials for which we have questionnaire data, 29 were from New Castle County, 4 were from Kent County, and 3 were from Sussex County. Information from the judicial questionnaire provided a snapshot of the range of jury trials included in this study.3 First, no one judge dominated the sample. Fifteen different judges had cases included in the study sample, with a range from one to four cases. Sixty percent of the cases (or 21) were criminal trials, predominantly involving violence to persons (14 of the 21), and secondarily, drugs (5 of 21). The remaining criminal cases included property crimes and a DUI. Forty percent of the cases (or 14) were civil trials, including auto accidents (6 of 14), slip and falls (2 of 14), contract disputes (2 of 14), and medical malpractice (2 of 14). There was also one product liability case and an asbestos case. Thus, the study cases included a fair range of types of trials. As for case outcomes, the vast majority of the criminal cases resulted in a conviction on at least one charge: seventeen of the twenty criminal cases that were decided by the jury (85%) resulted in guilty verdicts, one case produced a not guilty verdict, and in the remaining two cases the jury could not reach a verdict and was declared hung. In the civil cases, the defendant had a slight advantage: Of the twelve cases decided by a jury, five (42%) were plaintiff verdicts resulting in at least some damages, and the remaining seven (58%) were defense verdicts. Two civil cases settled during trial, and one criminal case was dismissed, but judges and jurors completed questionnaires in all three cases, so they are included in the total sample. Judges were asked to describe aspects of the case that might be related to the jury's task. They indicated the overall difficulty of the case for the jury, on a nine-point scale ranging from very easy (1) to very difficult (9). The average response was 4.9, very close the midpoint of the scale. Judges described about a third of the cases as easy (rating them 1, 2, or 3), and about a quarter of the cases as difficult (rating them a 7, 8, or 9). Responses fell into a bimodal distribution, clustering around moderately easy and moderately difficult cases. As can be seen in Figure 1, both civil and criminal cases varied in difficulty, and both types were represented in the easy, moderate, and difficult cases. However, the very easy cases were more apt to be criminal cases. Most cases (68% of all the trials) included expert witnesses. The presence of experts was marginally related to the judge's rating of the difficulty of the trial, in that trials with experts, especially when experts testified for both sides, were somewhat more likely to be rated as difficult for the jury. In general, the cases appeared to be fairly well presented by the two sides. The judges' rating of the quality of the presentation by the plaintiff or the state was 6.2 on a 9-point scale, while the average rating for the defense presentation was 6.7. Still, a significant minority of cases (six for the plaintiff's or state's side, and two for the defendant's side) were rated below the midpoint on quality of presentation. The two cases in which the defendant's presentation was rated as poor both occurred in criminal trials. The attorneys on the whole did not appear to be overly contentious. The contentiousness of the attorneys was rated above the midpoint in just six cases. Several questions tapped how jury and trial time was used. Most trials (83%) finished on the day estimated, and the number of sidebars or other proceedings outside the presence of the jury was low. In fact, in approximately 90% of the trials, the number of interruptions was no more than two per court session. Half of the trials usually resumed no more than five minutes late after breaks, while judges from the other trials reported longer delays after breaks. Deliberations were not lengthy, on the whole. Of the thirty-two cases in which juries deliberated, more than half of the deliberations (19 of the 32) lasted two hours or less. Just five deliberations spanned one court day or more (a court day was counted as six hours of deliberations). Judges also reported on how they handled notetaking and judicial instructions. In the majority of trials, notetaking was not allowed. In ten trials (or 29% of the total), judges allowed notetaking, while in the remainder they did not. Fifty-seven percent reported providing some instructions to the jury at the beginning of the trial. Final instructions were typically given after the attorneys' summations (78% of the time). In the remainder of the cases, judicial instructions were given before, or before and after, the attorney summations. Written copies of the judicial instructions were given to jurors in 91% of the trials. Although the numbers were too low to permit thorough statistical analysis, the use of these special techniques did not appear to be more frequent in more challenging cases. For example, in the cases that judges rated easy (1, 2, or 3 on a 9-point scale), three of eleven judges allowed notetaking. In the cases rated difficult (7, 8, or 9), three of nine judges allowed notetaking. The one possible exception to this pattern was giving final instructions before (or both before and after) the attorney summations. Five of the seven cases in which final instructions were given in this manner were rated above the midpoint on case difficulty. It may be useful to poll the judiciary about the circumstances under which they use special techniques to increase jury comprehension, and the plusses and minuses of such techniques. Characteristics of the Trial Jurors The trial jurors represented a microcosm of Delawareans. A total of 345 jurors came from New Castle County, 48 were from Kent County, and 39 came from Sussex County. Fifty-five percent of the jurors were female, and there was a broad range of ages from 19 to 79. Eighteen percent of the jurors were less than 30 years of age, half were between 30-49, another 22% were between 50 and 64 years of age, and those 65 and older comprised 11% of the jurors. Sixty-nine percent were married, another 17% had never married, 8% were divorced, 2% were separated, and 4% were widowed. Table 1 provides some selected comparisons of the Task Force jury sample and the Delaware population. Reflecting the racial distribution of the Delaware population, the trial jurors were predominantly white. Of the 432 trial jurors and alternates, 328 (or 82%) were white/Caucasian, while 59 (or 15%) were black/African-American. The remaining 3% of the jurors included 5 Asian/Pacific Islanders, 3 Native Americans, and 3 Hispanics. As Table 1 shows, the gender and race/ethnicity composition of the jury sample is roughly comparable to that obtained in the 1990 Census of the state of Delaware. On the whole, the trial jurors were well-educated. Just 3% of the trial jurors had less than a high school degree, while 26% had graduated from high school. Another 29% had some college, and 26% had graduated from college. Sixteen percent had done post-graduate work. Thus, over 70% of the jurors had at least some college education. Table 1 shows that the jury sample is much more highly educated than the 1990 Census count of Delawareans who are 18 years or age or older. Jurors were asked to estimate their total household income. Their estimates showed the overrepresentation of higher income citizens in this juror pool. Responses were skewed toward the higher income levels, compared to 1990 Census data on Delaware households. For example, as Table 1 shows, just 2% of the jurors reported household income of less than $10,000, while 11% of Delaware households reported that income range in the 1990 Census. Fifty-two percent of the juror sample reported incomes of $50,000 or more, compared to 29% of Delaware households assessed in the 1990 Census. Fully 82% of the trial jurors were employed, including 70% employed full-time, 4% self-employed, and 8% employed part-time. Four percent identified themselves as homemakers, 12% were retired, and 2% said they were currently unemployed. Those who were employed were asked to select an occupational category that best described their current job. Twenty-two percent of the jurors chose managerial specialties, while another 28% reported professional occupations. Thus half of the trial jurors were employed as managers or professionals. Another 27% worked in a technical or sales position, while 9% had service occupations. Seven percent were mechanics or craftspeople, and the same percentage were operators or laborers. Expectations of Jury Service Jurors were asked to recall what they had expected of jury duty before they actually served. These questions were included to try to determine whether citizens have a generally negative or positive view about jury duty prior to their service. The first column of data in Table 2 reports the expectations of jurors regarding jury duty. The vast majority said that they expected jury duty to be interesting: 75% of the trial jurors agreed that jury duty would be interesting, while only 11% disagreed. This was in spite of the fact that most jurors (59%) also expected it to be inconvenient, and most (57%) expected that it would interfere with their work. Yet, only 34% initially expected that jury duty would be a financial burden. Some personal characteristics of jurors significantly affected their expectations of jury service. Those with either low or high levels of education were more apt to expect jury duty to be inconvenient and to interfere with their work. Not surprisingly, those who were employed full-time or self-employed were most likely to expect interference with work. Household income was also linked to the anticipated financial consequences of jury duty. The poorest jurors (those with household incomes less than $10,000) were most likely to report that jury duty would be a financial burden. A number of trial jurors had asked to be excused from jury duty. Nineteen percent (or 78) of the group of trial jurors had requested an excuse. The most frequent reason for requesting to be excused was job responsibilities (42 of the 78). Several jurors cited medical or health reasons (5 of 78) and others mentioned vacation (6 of 78). No other reason, including the care of children, was cited by more than 2 people. The date of jury service was changed for 91 jurors (22% of the total) to accommodate their schedules. Jury Service Jurors reported the number of days they were on jury duty. The range was from one day to eighteen days. The majority of trial jurors and alternates served one week or less: 68% of the jurors reported that their jury service lasted from one to five days. Another 21% reported jury duty of six to ten days. A minority of jurors (11%) served on longer trials ranging from eleven to eighteen days. The average number of days of jury service was 4.8, with the most frequent number of days being two. For the vast majority (84%), this was their first term of jury service. Most of the jurors who were employed said that their employer was not strongly opposed to their jury service. Thirty-one percent said their employer had a positive reaction, 52% said their employer had a neutral reaction, and 17% stated that their employer's reaction was negative. Financial Costs of Jury Service We asked a number of questions about the financial costs of jury service. We asked about the out-of-pocket expenses that people incurred to serve on a jury, including travel, parking, meals, and childcare, and about any income lost from their jobs during the time they served. By far the greatest expense was lost income. We calculated the costs of jury duty in several ways. First, we assessed the average per diem cost, including all jurors in the sample, whether or not they had reported losses in any of the categories. Table 3 shows the average per diem expenses for jury duty for each county. Per diem expenses were highest for New Castle County and lowest for Kent County, with Sussex County falling in between. The average per diem expense, however, can be misleading in that it understates the financial impact of jury duty for the citizens who experience the greatest losses. Below we describe the range and average expenses of jury duty, focusing just on those jurors who reported losses in specific categories. _ Lost Income Many of the individuals employed by others continued to be paid during their jury duty. Of the 323 individuals who worked and who responded to our question about whether their employer continued to pay them during jury duty, 78% reported that the employer continued to pay them, 12% said their employer did not continue to pay them, and 11% did not know whether or not they would receive pay during their jury duty. Looking just at those jurors who had full-time employment, 92% reported that their employers continued their salary during jury duty. It was much less likely for the self-employed (17%) and those with part-time employment (31%) to be paid during jury duty. For those who were not paid by their employers, the amount lost was substantial. The foregone pay ranged from $25 to $675 per day, with an average of $136 lost per day of jury duty. Over the term of jury service, the average amount lost was substantial. Considering just those jurors who lost pay, the average amount was $629 over the term of jury service, with a range from $25 to $10,125. _ Child Care Most of the trial jurors did not report child care expenses associated with jury duty. Ninety-six percent (or 416 of the 432 jurors) had no child care expenses, while 4% (16 jurors) did. Of those who did report child care expenses, though, the amount was often substantial: Eight of the sixteen had expenses of $50 or more during their term of service, including three with child care bills for jury duty of over $100. The range was from $3 to $195, with an average total bill of $66 for those jurors who had child care expenses. _ Travel Expenses Travel expenses were reported by approximately half the sample, with amounts ranging from $1 to $90. The most frequent travel costs were in the $10 to $15 range, and the average amount of those who had travel expenses was $16 for their term of jury service. As shown in Table 3, New Castle and Sussex County jurors reported higher travel expenses than Kent County jurors. _ Parking Expenses Forty-two percent of the jurors indicated that they had to pay money to park during jury service. Parking was a common additional cost for New Castle County jurors, since there are no parking spaces set aside for jurors in downtown Wilmington. Jurors usually park in pay lots in the downtown area. The most frequent parking amounts per day were $7 or $8. In Kent County and Sussex County, discount and free parking is close by the courthouses, and jurors typically incur no or very modest parking expenses, as shown in Table 3. The average amount spent by jurors who had to pay for parking during their term of jury service was $24. _ Meal Expenses Another common expense was payment for meals during jury service. Seventy percent of the jurors said that they spent at least some money during their jury service for meals. The most frequent amount was $5 or $6 per day. Total amounts spent on food during jury duty ranged from $1 to $105, with an average amount of $22 for those who paid for at least some meals during jury duty. Meal expenses were highest for New Castle County jurors. _ Other Expenses Finally, a small number of jurors (8) reported other financial losses as a result of jury duty. Amounts ranged from $21 to $700, including five of $200 or more, and were frequently due to losses from self-employment. Thus, although the numbers were small, the amounts were sometimes hefty. _ Total Cost of Jury Duty Combining the total amounts for lost income, childcare, travel, parking, meals, and other expenses, one can see that the citizens who are called for jury duty expend a fair amount of money to serve on the jury. We added together all of the expenses that these 432 trial jurors reported. Seventy jurors reported no losses. The total amount for all jurors who did incur losses was $49,336. Jury Selection We were interested in obtaining jurors' views of the jury selection process in Delaware. Compared to other states, Delaware's jury selection process consumes a short period of time, and obtains a limited amount of information about potential jurors. Most typically, a court official or judge asks a number of general questions about potential biases and knowledge of the parties in the case at hand to a group of potential jurors, and the potential jurors are asked to come forward if they might have any knowledge about or possible conflicts in the current case. Approximately one of every five jurors came forward at least once during their jury service to speak to the judge and attorneys during jury selection. Thirty percent of those who came forward did so because they wanted to be excused from the case due to conflicting work or family obligations. The remainder came forward because they had answered yes to a question posed by the judge in voir dire, knew the witnesses or the attorneys, or had personal experiences conceivably relevant to the case (e.g., a family member who died of the same illness being litigated in a lawsuit). About a quarter of these individuals were excused by the judge. The trial jurors and alternates had positive views of the jury selection process, though a minority believed it was not thorough enough. Of the jurors who rated the thoroughness of jury selection, 87% said that it was about right, 1% said that it was too thorough, and 12% said that it was not thorough enough. In terms of the personal nature of the questions, a similar pattern was apparent. Ninety-one percent thought that the voir dire questioning was about right, 1% thought that the questions were too personal, and 9% thought that they were not personal enough. The jurors' overall rating of the jury selection process reflected their positive views: 69% were favorable, 24% were neutral, and 7% were unfavorable. Juror Experiences During the Trial We asked a series of questions tapping jurors' reactions and experiences during the jury trial, and whether or not the testimony or judicial instructions posed challenges to the jurors. The majority of jurors did not find it particularly stressful to listen to or view the trial evidence. Sixty-one percent rated it as not stressful (1, 2, or 3), another 30% found it moderately stressful (4, 5, or 6), and 10% found it very stressful (7, 8, or 9). Jurors were asked overall how easy or difficult it was to understand the evidence in the case they decided. Most jurors found the evidence relatively easy to understand. Sixty percent rated the evidence as easy (1, 2 or 3), 24% rated it as moderate (4, 5, or 6), and 16% rated it as difficult (7, 8, or 9). Those whose cases included experts also rated the difficulty of understanding the expert testimony, since research has identified expert evidence as among the most challenging types of evidence for jurors. But the trial jurors in this sample found even the expert evidence rather straightforward. Indeed, 74% rated it easy to understand (giving it a 1, 2, or 3), 18% rated it moderate (4, 5, or 6), and just 8% rated it as difficult to understand (7, 8, or 9). Jurors also rated their understanding of judicial instructions. Jury research has found that judicial instructions are another area of vulnerability for jurors.4 Yet, among these jurors most reported that the judicial instructions were relatively easy to understand. Seventy percent rated them easy to understand (1, 2, or 3), 21% rated them as moderate (4, 5, or 6), and 10% found the judicial instructions difficult to understand (7, 8, or 9). Most juries spent a fair amount of time discussing the judicial instructions during jury deliberations (the average was 5 on a 9-point scale). Certain differences among jurors were linked to their views about the difficulty of trial evidence and judicial instructions. The youngest jurors, those under 30 years of age, reported finding it more difficult to understand the evidence in the case, compared to older jurors. Jurors between the ages of 30 and 49, in contrast, reported finding the judicial instructions more challenging than those in other age groups. For every age group, however, the average response was well above the midpoint of the scale, reflecting the predominant view that the evidence and instructions were on the easy side of the continuum. Education, income and gender were unrelated to the jurors' assessments of the difficulty of the evidence and instructions. It should be noted that jurors' ratings of the evidence diverge somewhat from judicial assessments of the difficulty of the case. Of course, case difficulty incorporates more factors than simply the evidence, but it is nevertheless interesting to note that the average juror rating of the difficulty of the evidence was 3.6, while for judges, case difficulty averaged 4.9. Nearly a third of the jurors thought that the questioning of witnesses was not thorough enough. Yet, most jurors also said that it was relatively easy to remember trial evidence accurately in the jury room. In part, that was because they were able to rely on other jurors as well as themselves to recall the evidence. Although they were no more likely to say that it was difficult to remember trial evidence, jurors over the age of 64 were most likely to report that they relied upon other jurors to remember all of the evidence in the case. On the whole, jurors were well-satisfied with the way their trials had been conducted. Fifty-seven percent reported that they were very satisfied (1, 2, or 3), another 27% rated their satisfaction as moderate (4, 5, or 6), and 16% were dissatisfied (7, 8, or 9). Jury Deliberation Most jurors reported participating actively during the jury deliberation of their case. On a 9-point scale with endpoints ranging from not at all (1) to very much (9), the jurors' average response was a 7, indicating a substantial amount of participation. According to most jurors, all points of view were thoroughly considered during the jury deliberation, with an average response of 7.7 on a 9-point scale. Just 11 jurors (about 2% of the total group) rated the consideration of all viewpoints as low (1, 2, or 3). Most jurors also thought that they personally had some influence in the jury deliberation. Just 16% described themselves as not influential at all (1, 2, or 3). Fifty-two percent rated themselves as moderately influential (4, 5, or 6), and 32% saw themselves as very influential (7, 8, or 9). Nevertheless, a significant number found the deliberation somewhat stressful, with 31% saying it was moderately stressful (4, 5, or 6) and another 27% saying it was very stressful (7, 8, or 9). One issue about the jury deliberation process that has concerned some policy makers is the extent to which participation in the jury room may be uneven. Participation on the jury has been linked to gender, with men typically speaking more than women. In some studies, education and income is also related to participation, with wealthier and more educated jurors speaking more on the average than poorer and less educated jurors.5 On that score, there were some reassuring results in the jurors' responses to questions about participation and influence. At least according to their own assessments of their participation, there were no significant differences for gender, education, and income. Racial and ethnic minorities were more likely than whites to see themselves as influential in the jury room. The oldest group of jurors, those 65 and over, reported being less influential than other jurors (and those under 30 reported being most influential), but there were no significant differences according to age or race in the jurors' reports of their actual participation on the jury. About half the jurors reported that it was difficult to arrive at a unanimous verdict in their cases (it will be recalled that two criminal trials ended in hung juries). Thirty-two percent described the process of reaching unanimity as easy (1, 2, or 3), another 25% rated it as moderate (4, 5, or 6), and 44% rated it as difficult (7, 8, or 9). Another problematic area was assessing damages. There were five civil cases in which money damages were awarded. Fifty jurors from those cases rated the difficulty of arriving at a monetary figure for damages. Most rated it as fairly challenging: Just 10% said it was easy (1, 2, or 3), 38% said it was moderately easy/difficult (4, 5, or 6), and 52% reported that it was difficult (7, 8, or 9). Civil versus Criminal Jury Experiences There were several differences between jurors who sat in civil as opposed to criminal trials. First, civil jurors were more likely to report difficulty with understanding the evidence at trial, particularly expert evidence. However, the average response for both civil and criminal jurors was still on the easy side of the continuum. Furthermore, and contrary to expectations, civil jurors also were more likely to report that it was stressful to listen to the evidence at the trial. Compared to criminal case jurors, civil jurors were apt to say they were more influential in the jury room. Although both criminal and civil jurors were quite satisfied with how their trial was conducted, civil case jurors expressed relatively greater satisfaction. Jurors' Attitudes about Proposed Jury Reforms Because our Task Force is actively considering a number of reforms to the jury system, we included questions about potential reforms on the questionnaire. Table 4 displays jurors' support for various reforms. _ Judicial Instructions Two questions dealt with different ways of presenting judicial instructions. Jurors were asked how helpful it would have been to receive general instructions about the law at the beginning of the trial, before any of the evidence was presented. Fifty-six percent of the jurors agreed that it would have been quite helpful to have been pre-instructed in the law (agreement included ratings of 1, 2, 3 or 4 on a 9-point scale). A smaller number, 42%, agreed that it would have been helpful to receive judicial instructions prior to the attorneys giving their closing arguments. _ Damage Award Figures Jurors who had decided civil trials involving personal injuries were also asked about how useful it would have been to receive a total damage award request in civil cases. They were told: Under Delaware law, attorneys in personal injury civil trials are not allowed to provide the jury with a total damage award request or a dollar figure for pain and suffering. How helpful would it have been for the attorneys to provide you with these figures? Jurors from these civil trials (68 total jurors) agreed, with 54% endorsing this change. This no doubt reflects in part the difficulty that many jurors reported in arriving at monetary damages. Men jurors were significantly more likely than women jurors to say that it would have been helpful to have attorneys provide them with damage award requests. _ Notetaking Jurors were asked a series of questions about notetaking, which was permitted in a minority of trials during the study period. Seventy-four jurors said that they were allowed to take notes in their trial, 235 said they were not allowed, and another 55 did not know whether they were allowed to take notes. Of the 74 jurors who could take notes, the vast majority (67) did so. Forty-nine percent of those who could not take notes said they would have liked to do so (ratings of 1, 2, 3, or 4 on a 9-point scale). Whether they were allowed to take notes during the trial or not, most of the trial jurors described themselves as fairly experienced notetakers, with an average of 6.2 on a 9-point scale tapping experience with notetaking Several questions assessed the experience of notetaking in trials. Those who did take notes rated them as quite useful: The average response was 6.6 on a 9-point scale. The majority of jurors refuted a common concern about notetaking: 74% agreed (1, 2, 3, or 4 rating) that it was very easy to pay attention to the trial proceedings and take notes at the same time. The amount that jurors relied on their notes varied. Twenty-four percent stated that they did not rely much on their notes (1, 2, or 3), another 35% relied on their notes a moderate amount (4, 5, or 6 ) and 41% stated that they relied on their notes a good deal (7, 8, or 9). Only 29% of the jurors agreed that jurors who had notes had more influence than jurors without notes (rating of 1, 2, 3, or 4). All the same, civil jurors were significantly more likely than criminal jurors to say that jurors who took notes were more influential in the jury room. _ Question Asking Jurors were asked about a novel technique callowing jurors to ask questions under carefully controlled circumstances--that is currently being used in a number of courts nationwide. They were told: Imagine that after the lawyers had finished questioning the witnesses, there was a question that you felt should have been asked but wasn't. Some people have suggested that in this situation, jurors should be allowed to submit their questions in writing to the judge for the judge to ask the witness. We would like to know your general opinion about being allowed to ask questions in this way. Jurors were highly favorable to this reform. Fully 80% of the jurors said that they would have liked to have asked a question about the evidence in their trials, and 56% stated that they would have liked to have asked a question about the law in their trials. Sixty-four percent said that it would have been very helpful to be able to ask questions (1, 2, or 3), while another 25% stated that it would have been moderately helpful (4, 5, or 6). The vast majority of jurors believed that they would feel free to ask questions, if allowed by a judge. _ Post-Trial Contact by Attorneys Delaware is unusual in that attorneys are not as a rule permitted to speak to jurors after the trial, in contrast to other states where such post-trial contact is common. We tapped jurors' reactions to a change in the rules with the following question: "Currently, Delaware rules forbid attorneys from contacting jurors to discuss the case with jurors in their trials after the trial is over. How would you feel about changing the rules to allow attorneys to speak to a juror about the case, if the juror wanted to?" Twenty-eight percent of the jurors were quite favorable (1, 2, or 3), and another 22% expressed moderate views (4, 5, or 6), while 51% were quite opposed (7, 8, or 9) to the change. Task Force members speculated that criminal jurors might be particularly reluctant to speak to defense attorneys after a criminal trial. However, civil jurors and criminal jurors did not differ in their support for this reform. What is striking about the opinions is that the two most common responses were at the very ends of the scale. The definitely favor endpoint was chosen by 61 jurors, while the definitely oppose endpoint was selected by 143 jurors. Clearly this is an issue about which jurors feel very strongly. Although a majority opposes the change, a significant minority would apparently value the opportunity to speak to attorneys after the trial. Post-Service Views of Jury Service A final set of questions tapped the general views that jurors had of their jury experience. As the data presented in the second column of Table 2 show, these general views were highly favorable. Seventy-five percent of the jurors in this study agreed that their general view of jury service was favorable (rating of 1, 2, 3, or 4), while 70% agreed that their impression of jury service was generally more favorable than before they served. In other words, their experiences actually serving as a juror or alternate increased the positive regard that they had for the jury system. Thirty percent of the jurors chose the endpoint of the scale (1, the most favorable rating) for this question, suggesting the impact of serving on a jury had indeed been a very positive experience. There were no differences between civil and criminal jurors in their overall views of jury service or in their eagerness to serve again. The drawbacks of jury service seemed to be less than initially expected, as Table 21s contrast between pre- and post-service views reveals. For instance, 39% acknowledged that jury duty had been inconvenient, 22% agreed that it had been a financial burden, and 43% said that it had interfered with their work. Yet all of these concerns proved to be less problematic for jurors than they initially expected prior to their jury service. For example, 59% reported their initial expectation that jury duty would be inconvenient, but after they had finished their jury service just 39% said that it was inconvenient. A similar pattern is evident in the extent to which jury duty imposed financial burdens or interfered with work. Whites were more likely than racial and ethnic minorities to say that jury duty had been inconvenient and had interfered with their work. A significant minority of jurors (22%) stated that jury duty was stressful for them. First-time jurors reported somewhat higher levels of stress, with 31% agreeing that jury duty had been stressful the first time around. Thirty-five percent agreed that balancing jury duty with other demands of their lives was stressful. Fifteen percent found conditions at the courthouse to be stressful. Whites more often than minorities reported that jury duty was stressful for them. It is gratifying that the vast majority of jurors sitting on trials found their jury experience to be a positive one. Yet a significant minority reported some negative reactions to their jury service. One set of statistical analyses looked at the factors associated with overall favorable (or unfavorable) views of jury duty. Jurors who described jury duty as inconvenient, stressful, and an interference with their work tended to have more negative attitudes overall toward jury service. Each of these problems made an independent contribution to negativity about serving on a jury. Conclusion In sum, these reactions indicate that jurors in the state of Delaware are very favorable on the whole toward their jury service. Despite the fact that citizens encounter some dislocation at home and work as a result of their jury duty, those jurors who participate as decision makers rate the experience highly. They also express interest in experimenting with reforms such as question-asking and notetaking to make their task easier. Our goal is to enhance the experience and quality of jury service for the broad range of citizens who serve their community in this unique and important way. We hope that the provision of this systematic information about Delaware jurors' reactions will assist the courts in further improving the largely positive experience of its jurors. Endnotes
Table 4. Jurors' Support for Jury Trial Reforms
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© 2005 Delaware State Bar Association. All rights reserved.