This is a guest blog written by David Giles, the well know litigation consultant, as part of our recurring guest blogger program. We hope you enjoy it!
The Michigan Supreme Court announced sweeping changes that the way jurors can participate in Michigan’s legal cases. The rule changes, which take effect on 1 September, can be implemented at the trial judge's discretion, and include:
• Jurors can submit questions to witnesses in civil and criminal trials.
• Jurors can take notes during the case and use them in deliberations.
• Jurors in civil cases can discuss the evidence among themselves, when all are present, in the jury room before the conclusion of the case.
• Jurors will be given pretrial instructions covering their duties, trial procedures and the applicable law.
• Attorneys may give an interim commentary or recap during the trial, as well as their traditional opening statements and closing arguments.
• Judges must give juries a written copy of the final instructions and must invite jurors to ask questions to clarify the instructions.
• Judges may present an impartial summation at the conclusion of the trial.
• If there is an impasse during deliberations, a judge may invite jurors to list the outstanding issues if he or she can help "in clarifying or amplifying the final instructions."
Michigan’s Chief Justice Robert Young Jr. believes that the new rules are designed to reflect how adults learn and make decisions and will enhance the ability of jurors to do what trials are all about, and that is to find the truth.
The new rules come after 12 Michigan judges tried them out during a two-year pilot project.
Under these reforms, judges will have to give certain instructions at the beginning of the trial. Judge Thomas Boyd of Michigan’s 55th District Court observed that jurors in civil cases won't have to wait until a trial is over to discuss it and that they can discuss the information while it is “fresh in their minds.” Judge Boyd noted that, "The reality is we know jurors were doing this anyway."
"As the information is fresh in their mind, when they're all together, they can talk about it," he said. "The reality is we know jurors were doing this anyway." "It's still the judges responsibility to make sure the evidence presented to the jury is consistent with the rules, but it gives the jury a more proactive, interactive opportunity to understand the evidence," said Judge Boyd.
These types of jury reforms have been underway in a number of states across the country. In states where jury reforms have been enacted, the jurors I encounter seem to be more engaged and have less of a “sit-back-and-watch the performance” approach to their duties as jurors. One area of concern, however, is that these changes also empower judges with option to summarize the attorney’s arguments to the jurors. This reform invites considerable bias and influence to be inserted into the trial process.
It’s rewarding to see some states exploring how to improve our jury system rather than simply taking the path of eliminating litigation or moving toward “professional jurors.” Thomas Jefferson’s trusted his fellow citizens and his words warned us, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet devised by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
David A. Giles, Ph.D.
President and Chief Litigation Consultant
Giles Group
dgiles@gilesgroup.net
Comments