A study in which jurors in long (more than 20 days) and short (1 to 6 days) federal trials (albeit civil rather than criminal) were interviewed found a number of disquieting differences. Jurors in the long trials were substantially more likely to be retired or unemployed and substantially less likely to have a college education. Nearly three-fourths of the jurors in the lengthy trials said the evidence was �difficult� or �very difficult� to understand, compared to 30 percent who reported the same in short trials. Of course the length of the trial might be correlated with the complexity of the evidence, and the latter might be the befuddling force. But this would not adequately explain why twice as many jurors in long than in short trials reported their attention wandering during the presentation of evidence either �occasionally� or �quite a lot,� and why more than twice as many (amounting to almost half of all the jurors who were interviewed) found it difficult or very difficult to understand how they were supposed to reach a verdict. Joe S. Cecil et al., Jury Service in Lengthy Civil Trials 1, 9, 11�13, 28 (tab. 7), 33 (tab. 8) (Fed. Judic. Center 1987).
Long jury trials
- More on the Eastern District of Texas
- New York judges more likely to acquit than juries
- Jury trials and the press, UK edition
- Caylee's Law?
- Around the web, March 16
- Judge grants new trial for plaintiff in St. Louis "Girls Gone Wild" case
- Philip Howard in WSJ on medical liability politics
- New Republic: "Pre-emption games"
- Bureau of Justice Statistics 2005 Report on Civil Trials in State Courts
- Trial innovations: study shows favorable results
- City juries and suburban juries
- Souter's "icky Exxon" footnote
- "Jury misbehavior more common than thought"
- Japan introduces trial by jury