Final report for the Massachusetts Project on Innovative Jury Trial Practices

70 Pages·2001·1.8 MB·English

by  Massachusetts Project on Innovative Jury Trial Practices

* UMASS/AMHERST *
2066 0367 3133
1
NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS
Final Report for the
Massachusetts Project on Innovative Jury Trial Practices
Prepared for the National Center for Citizen Participation in the
Administration ofJustice
January 30, 2001
with funding by the State Justice Institute
Slate
SJI
Justice
Institute
By:
Paula L. Hannaford G. Thomas Munsterman
Senior Research Associate Director, Center for Jury Studies
300 Newport Avenue 2425 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 350
VA VA
Williamsburg, 23185 Arlington, 22201
Court Research Division
National Center for State Courts
300 Newport Avenue
VA
Williamsburg, 23185
V\ASS KFM 2942 .M373 2001
vvvJioscic^nu^cs lor
I
Innovative Jury Trial
-inal report for the
'Massnrni
This item may be kept
DAYS ,
14
MAY BE RENEWED
IT
ONLY ONCE
Innovative Jury Trial Practices
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
I.
Acknowledgements
II.
Project History and Overview
III.
IV. Recommendations
A. Permitting Jurors to Take Notes
B. Giving Jurors Preliminary Instructions on the Law
C. Using Plain English During Trial
D. Post-Verdict Meetings with the Judge and Jurors
E. Using Plain English Jury Instructions
F. Giving Jurors Suggestions for Conducting Deliberations
G. Permitting Jurors to Submit Questions to Witnesses
H. Debriefing Jurors after Stressful Trials
I. Responding to Juror Questions about Final Insturctions
J. Providing Jurors with Written or Taped Jury Instructions..
K. Providing Juror Notebooks
L. Giving Jurors Final Instructions before Closing Arguments
M. Post-verdict Meetings with Judge, Jurors and Attorneys
....
N. Placing Time Limits on Attorneys
O. Mini-opening Statements/ Interim Commentary
P. Permitting Juror Discussions during Trial
V. Structural/ Institutional Recommendations
A. Pretrial Management
B. Essential Resources
C. Statutes / Court Rules
Appendix A. Participating Judges
Appendix B. Survey Instruments
Appendix C. Selected Juror Questions Submitted to Witnesses ....
Digitized by the Internet Archive
2015
in
https://archive.org/details/finalreportfornnaOOmass
Innovative Jury Trial Practices
Executive Summary
I.
The Massachusetts Project on Innovative Jury Practices is a demonstration project
intended to encourage the use ofjury trial practices that enhancejuror performance and
satisfaction withjury service. The project consisted ofan initial conference in which
judges, formerjurors, and lawyers discussed innovativejury practices in use in
Massachusetts and elsewhere. Thejudicial attendees then participated in a year-long
project in which they introduced these practices in their own courtrooms and periodically
met to share their experiences and insights about the practices. To document the use of
these practices,jurors were asked to complete questionnaires about their assessments of
the innovative practices used in the trials in which they served. The participatingjudges
also completed surveys describing the frequency ofuse and the relative helpfulness of
these practices, as did the attorneys. Reports were filed on 150 cases by 1264jurors and
176 attorneys.
The ultimate goal ofthe project is to give thejudges who participated in the initial
conference sufficient time and opportunity to become familiar and comfortable with these
practices, so that they may serve as educators for theirjudicial colleagues throughout the
Commonwealth.
The vast majority ofthejury trial practices examined were received with great
enthusiasm by thejudges,jurors, and attorneys who participated in the study, and none of
them reported any serious problems with their implementation. In particular,juror
notetaking, preinstructions on the law, and post-verdict meetings between thejudge and
jurors were highly recommended practices. A few ofthe practices were used less
ii

Innovative Jury Trial Practices
frequently than others. Some are designed primarily for use in more complex or difficult
trials (e.g.,juror notebooks, debriefmgs forjuror stress). Others require more pretrial
preparation or additional resources than is generally available to Massachusetts trial
judges. For two ofthe practices, there were also questions about whether they were
permissible under existing Massachusetts law.
This report summarizes the empirical data and anecdotal experiences ofthe
participatingjudges,jurors and attorneys, and makes recommendations about structural
changes and resources necessary to permit the greatest use ofthese practices.
iii

Innovative Jury Trial Practices
Acknowledgements
II.
A
study ofthis magnitude always depends on the support and encouragement of
many individuals. The authors wish to express their gratitude to Florence Rubin,
President, National Center for Citizen Participation in the Administration ofJustice, who
initiated this project and has worked tirelessly to improve to conditions ofjury service for
the citizens ofMassachusetts; ChiefJustice Herbert P. Wilkins (ret.) for his support ofthe
project's goals and research efforts; Robert Brink, Executive Vice President, Flaschner
Judicial Institute, who supported this project with funding and logistical support; Judge
Peter M. Lauriat ofthe Superior Court who served as the coordinator for thejudges in the
project and acted as facilitator at numerous meetings; Anne Walker and the late Robert
Lowe ofthe staffofthe Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court who coordinated data
entry for the study data; and most importantly, the Massachusetts Trial Courtjudges who
agreed to participate in the study by introducing these reform practices in their
courtrooms. This study was funded by State Justice Institute grant SJI-98-N-135 ("The
Jury Project: Judicial Education Program") to the National Center for Citizen
Participation in the Administration ofJustice. The points ofview expressed are those of
the authors and do not necessarily represent the official positions or policies ofthe State
Justice Institute, the National Center for Citizen Participation in the Administration of
Justice, or the National Center for State Courts.
iv