INTRODUCTION

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to . . . trial by an impartial jury . . . .

Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved . . . .

Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate.

Article 2, Section 23, Arizona Constitution

The right to trial by jury remains one of our most valued liberties. In addition to serving as a needed buffer between government and the individual, juries put a human face on the law, help legitimate case outcomes and contribute to the finality of criminal cases and civil disputes.

However hallowed the right and institution of trial by jury, increasing criticism is being leveled at jury decisions in many high profile cases. Jury trial procedures, which have not changed substantially over the past 200 years, and the role played by the jury during trial also have recently come under serious empirical study by leading legal and social science institutions and authorities, all of whom call for major reforms in the way our legal system utilizes and affects jurors.⁽¹⁾ Principal among the concerns are the lack of jury representativeness in an increasingly diverse society, enforced juror passivity during trials and unacceptably low levels of juror comprehension of the evidence and of the court's instructions.

Mindful of these concerns and desiring a thorough review of Arizona's jury system and jury trial procedures in light of contemporary knowledge and experience, the Arizona Supreme Court, on April 14, 1993, established the Committee on More Effective Use of Juries. This statewide committee was composed of a cross-section of former jurors, jury administrators, academicians, civil and criminal attorneys and trial and appellate judges, who were commissioned to examine jury service and jury trial practices. Among other things, the court directed us to recommend specific changes in procedures, rules and statutes that would improve jury service, jury trials and jury verdicts. The Supreme Court's order and a list of committee members are found in immediately following this Introduction at page 5-8.

The committee held eleven four-hour meetings in the year and a half that followed. About 20 subcommittees were established to examine particular subjects or issues and to report back to the full committee, which acted upon the subcommittees' recommendations.

As chair, I wish to acknowledge the contributions made by all of the committee members. A special note of thanks is owed to the several members from the private sector, particularly those who served at considerable personal sacrifice. The five former jurors, including Jim Calvin, who passed away during the period of the committee's work, made an especially valuable contribution, due not only to their considerable recent jury experience but also to the fact that they were not constrained by legal and judicial traditions and assumptions. The three educators--professors of law, law and psychology and cultural anthropology--also added immeasurably to the committee's efforts and to this report, given their respective fields of expertise, research and writing. The Administrative Office of the Courts was very supportive by assigning excellent staff.

The report that follows takes the form of 55 specific recommendations touching upon the entire process in which jurors are involved, beginning with the subject of source lists from which potential jurors' names are taken and ending with the need for post-verdict debriefings of jurors following unusually stressful trials. We looked at the process and issues through the eyes of jurors, asking ourselves what we would need or like to have in order to understand the evidence, the legal instructions and to decide a case. We also asked how we would like to be treated as jurors and what we would expect from the judges, attorneys and court before, during and after trial.

The committee's report calls for trials that allow for a more democratic juror experience, ones that are more educational and less adversarial. Judges and trial attorneys are summoned to be open to doing some old things in new ways, to be more receptive to the jurors' needs to learn better and to actively participate to a greater degree in the fact-finding process.

Finally, we encourage the Supreme Court to approve and publish a "Bill of Rights for Arizona Jurors," a document that enumerates the more important juror rights, ones that all trial participants are expected to honor.

Respectfully submitted,

B. Michael Dann, Chairman