Ending the U.S. jury system circus.

• Author: Herman, Jeff

THE U.S. JURY SYSTEM has been rocked by criticism in recent years. Both in civil and criminal cases, verdicts deemed by the public to be uninformed, prejudiced, or just plain wrong seem to emanate from almost every high-profile trial. The most prominent examples are well-known, including the O.J. Simpson and Rodney King cases, the McDonald's $2,900,000 spilled coffee verdict, and the $4,000,000 BMW repainted car trial, to name a few.

This last verdict, which was set aside by the U.S. Supreme Court, particularly mystified people. An individual who had purchased a car from a BMW dealership discovered that, due to paint damage caused during transport, the automobile had been retouched. The dealership never informed the buyer that the new car had been repainted. An Alabama jury awarded the plaintiff $4,000,000 in punitive damages, an astounding sum since the jury itself decided that the actual damage to the car was about $4,000.

The current climate would indicate that there clearly is a crisis of confidence in the jury system. Some even have called for its abolishment. If this lack of confidence is as acute as it appears to be, Americans' concept of justice is at risk of being seriously undermined. There is evidence that the public feels this to be the case.

A poll by the Gallup Organization reported that 88% of those queried felt that the civil justice system has flaws that should be corrected. No one -- from lawyers to judges to juries -- escaped blame for these flaws.

Meanwhile, a June, 1996, Decision Research survey indicated that attorneys have been particularly hard hit by public perception. More than one in five Americans -- approximately 22% -- indicated that they currently have no respect for lawyers. As a point of reference, when asked the same question about accountants, three percent said they had no respect for those professionals.

As members of a trial consulting firm that has worked on hundreds of major cases around the country, we at Decision Research are in a unique position to view the difficulties the jury system presents for jurors. In our view, the jury system is flawed, but it is not the jurors who are to blame.

Inevitably, any discussion must begin with the question of whether or not the jury system is worth saving. Setting aside the reality that abolishment of the jury system would put a serious crimp in the business of my firm, our view is that the current system remains viable -- first because it can be saved, but more importantly because the jury system is at the very root of the founding philosophy of this country.

The jury represents the people's opportunity to participate directly in governance. It is the most powerfully symbolic evidence of democracy, second only to the ability to vote. Although challenged many times, the nation still is unable to come up with a better alternative.

Exactly what are the problems and what can be done to address them? We believe they fall into two broad categories. The...