The ridiculously brilliant and impossible American civil jury system

 

“You should not surrender your honest convictions about the value or significance of evidence solely because of the opinions of your fellow jurors. Nor should you change your mind just for the purpose of obtaining enough votes for a verdict…As jurors, you are officers of this court. You must not let your emotions overcome your rational thought process. You must reach your decision based on the facts provided to you and on the law given to you, not on sympathy, prejudice, or personal preference.” -- Instructions to King County jurors in a civil case, 2020.

What do I think

On the surface, the American jury seems, frankly, absurd. Why should a random group of citizens—without specialized knowledge of law or the specific field at hand—be tasked with deciding someone’s fate in a court of law? What could a jury of laypeople know about the nuances of the legal system and the technicalities of cases involving medicine, education, environmental policy, or other complex areas? How can they be expected to make balanced, fair decisions without this expertise?

Yet, there’s a kind of genius to it. In our jury system, a person is judged by their peers, not by the government itself. And in criminal cases, this neutrality becomes essential. The government, as the prosecutor, has a clear stake in the case—it’s bringing the charges. So it’s only fair that the final verdict rests with a jury, which acts as a neutral party and a buffer against government bias.

But what’s intriguing is that the jury model applies not only to criminal cases but also to civil cases in which the state is not directly involved. In civil trials, the state acts as a neutral party, providing a legal framework and a judge only. The final decision is left to a jury. Although trials are increasingly rare (only about 1% of civil cases make it to trial today compared to 20% in the 1930s), the jury's role in these cases is a critical piece of the justice system.

We often think of standards like “beyond a reasonable doubt” and “unanimous verdicts,” but these don’t necessarily apply to civil cases. Civil trials require a different burden of proof and don’t demand unanimous decisions. Our social fabric gets tested when we hear about a jury verdicts that clash with popular opinion, especially in high-stakes cases like medical malpractice, wrongful death, and environmental liability. When juries fail to return expected verdicts, social media pundits, news outlets, and dinner table debates ignite, revealing society’s frustrations with what seems like a mystifying process.

But what do we really understand about jury deliberations? What goes on in that room as jurors weigh evidence and navigate instructions? While some jurors have shared their experiences in criminal trials, insights into civil jury deliberations remain elusive. Despite research using trial models, surveys, and court records, the jury room itself remains one of America’s most protected domains, where decisions are made in private, with no visibility on the process.

I encountered these complexities firsthand while serving on a civil trial jury in King County, Washington, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. King County is home to Seattle, with world class medical systems and renowned brands that include Boeing, Amazon, Costco, and Microsoft. The case was a medical malpractice wrongful death case. The 3-week process was heart-wrenching, confusing, long-lasting, and educative. I was known as Juror number five. 

Our instructions after two excruciating weeks of witness testimony were murky and impossible to comply with. How could we get to consensus by keeping our honest convictions and not changing our opinions based on our fellow jurors? Can a human being set aside emotions, sympathy, prejudices, or personal preferences? We are not A.I. bots. 

It may be easy for a court to issue an instruction, but is it possible to adhere to? In a twenty-first century world full of social media, reactions to posts (likes, hearts, and thumbs up), and the ability to instantly comment on anything at all, our emotions and prejudices in the real world are unchecked. Is it reasonable to expect jurors to magically set reality aside and focus only on the technical aspects of the evidence? Jury instructions may demand impartiality, but is it genuinely achievable?

Why You Should Care

I hope you have the privilege of serving as a juror on a civil trial. It is an eye-opening experience that will leave you confused, humbled, and challenged. You can trigger significant financial implications for both parties. Take the jury instructions seriously, discuss them as a group before diving into the case itself, and understand that in the jury room, you are truly on your own. The judge won’t clarify the law’s nuances or help you find an answer; it’s up to you and your fellow jurors to interpret, deliberate, and ultimately decide. For a more personal look into the jury experience, check out my book, “I Also Can’t Breathe, But This Jury Hangs”, available on most e-book platforms or at https://tinyurl.com/booksbygaleeb.

 

References:

Going, Going, But Not Quite Gone: Trials Continue to Decline in Federal and State Courts. Does it Matter? Jeffrey Q. Smith and Grant R. MacQueen https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/going-going-but-not-quite-gone-trials-continue-to-decline-in-federal-and-state-courts-does-it-matter/