Comment on jurors' general abilities to decide complex cases. Use the research presented in the text to support your answer.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Answers may vary.Many arguments have been made against the use of juries in complex cases. Some prominent examples include (1) the evidence is too difficult for a layperson to understand; (2) the general information load on juries is excessive because of the large number of witnesses, particularly expert witnesses, who testify in these cases; and (3) because of voir dire procedures that result in the exclusion of jurors with some understanding of or interest in the case, less-capable jurors are left to decide.Data about jurors in complex trials support some, but not all, of these concerns. Interview studies (e.g., Sanders, 1993) consistently point to a substantial range in the abilities of jurors to understand and summarize the evidence. Some jurors are willing and able to attend to the complicated nature of the testimony and the sometimes-arcane questions of law that they raise; others are overwhelmed from the beginning. Lempert (1993) systematically examined the reports of 12 complex trials. He concluded that in 2 of the 12 cases, the expert testimony was so complicated and esoteric that only professionals in the field could have understood it. On the other hand, Lempert found little evidence that jurors were befuddled-and concluded that their verdicts were largely defensible.But jurors can be confounded by the presence of multiple parties and claims. When Reiber and Weinberg (2010) presented hypothetical cases of varying complexity to individuals summoned for jury duty, they found that comprehension worsened as the number of parties and claims increased. Mock jurors had difficulty deciding a breach of contract case that involved a claim, an affirmative defense, a permissive counterclaim, and a third-party claim (no surprises there!). They managed capably to decide an automobile negligence case that involved a single plaintiff and single defendant.