University of Delaware
Office of Public Relations
The Messenger
Vol. 6, No. 1/1996
Juries may be in for trying times

     Valerie Hans, a nationally known expert on juries, says she
has some real concerns about what she sees happening to the U.S.
jury system. "Juries are being attacked on all sides. The 'jury
of our peers' concept could be in danger," she says.
     Hans, who directed the UD's Legal Studies Program until
September and is a professor of criminal justice, says her fears
have been triggered by recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions,
public opinion and attempts by Congress to restrict the authority
of juries.
     "We actually have a democratic jury system now," Hans says.
But, she says she's afraid that may be the very reason juries are
under attack. "Because juries now really do speak with the voice
of the people," she says, "they no longer can be counted on to
speak only for the elite."
     Hans explains that, in the '50s and '60s, many jurors were
selected by what was called the "key man system," where the most
powerful and respected citizens in a community were asked to
recommend the people who ultimately would serve on juries. That
meant that juries almost always reflected the values and
experiences of the elite, she says.
     Then, in 1968, Congress passed the Federal System Jury
Selection and Service Act, mandating that federal jurors be
chosen from lists of registered voters. That changed everything,
Hans says. Soon, states began passing the same law, only to find
that even voters' lists were not that representative. Drivers'
license lists and welfare rolls are used now by some states.
     "The legislation made juries much more representative of the
entire range of the population," she says.  But, recently, the
U.S. Supreme Court decided that juries are not capable of
understanding the minutiae needed to determine the scope of a
patent-holder's rights in patent violation cases.
     Hans disagrees. She's found that juries are usually made up
of people with diverse backgrounds who understand their own
intellectual strengths and weaknesses. Generally, those who are
less able to understand complex testimony defer to the opinions
of panel members who are more educated or knowledgable. That,
combined with the experiences and sensibilities of people from a
variety of backgrounds, makes the judgment both more
comprehensive and more democratic, Hans says.
     "When a jury does get it wrong, the error can almost always
be directly attributed to a poor presentation of the case," Hans
says.
     She notes that, in survey after survey, when asked what is
the most effective part of the judicial system, judges almost
always answer, "Juries."
     Congress also has been trying to limit jury discretion, Hans
says. At the urging of the business community, legislators have
been trying to pass laws that would cap damages awarded in civil
and even criminal cases.
     Hans is so concerned that she's begun research for a new
book, tentatively titled Citizens vs. Corporations, on how juries
handle complicated civil trials that pit individuals against
corporations and corporations against each other.
     Hans previewed her book this spring in an article she wrote
for the American Judicature Society's journal, Judicature.
     Much of the information she used in the article came from a
series of surveys, studies and experiments Hans and her
colleagues conducted between 1989 and 1991. Hans says in the
article abstract that she hopes the results of her research will
"provide some reassurance to the business community."
     From interviews with 269 civil jurors, mock trials using 216
community residents and a public opinion survey of 450 people,
she's found that the concept of jurors going into a courtroom
with the intention of taking money from the rich (corporations)
and giving it to the poor (individuals) couldn't be proven.
     She found that juries are very skeptical of individuals who
sue corporations, holding them to a high standard of proof.
     Hans' research also refutes the "deep pockets" hypothesis,
as well. Her experiments and surveys show that the size of jury
awards had little to do with the wealth of the corporation but
much to do with the magnitude of damage and degree of negligence.
     Juries don't need their powers to be limited, Hans says, but
they could use some help.
     Judges aren't allowed to tell jurors about awards in similar
cases; attorneys aren't allowed to put figures on the cost of
damages or to make specific requests for compensation; and jurors
aren't allowed to ask questions during a trial, discuss the trial
amongst themselves or even take notes, Hans said.
     But, there are jurisdictions where some changes have been
made.
     In Arizona, a court-appointed committee conducted a
comprehensive review of jury service with the intention of making
the jury system more democratic and better-educated. In December,
1995, 15 of the panel's recommendations were adopted by the
Arizona Supreme Court. Hans has been asked to review the results
of those changes, which include paying jurors $50 per day of
service, with employers paying for the first three days; setting
time limits for trials; allowing jurors to take notes and ask
questions during the trial; allowing the judge and attorneys to
answer questions when jurors reach an impasse; and developing a
juror's bill of rights.
     In September, Hans was interviewed by Ed Bradley for a CBS
Reports story on U.S. juries, which is scheduled to air later
this year.
                                              -Barbara Garrison