07/19/2006

Editorial

Changes in jury rules a positive step forward

Few things seem more straightforward than the American jury system. Jurors are chosen, they listen to both sides during a trial, they decide guilt or innocence. Changing a system so deeply ingrained in our culture is virtual heresy.

Improving the way juries work, however, is another matter, and something most of us never think about. A series of proposals being considered by the state Supreme Court, however, are certainly worthy of consideration.

Advocates say the aim is to make it easier for jurors to make the crucial decisions they face, and some of the rules appear to do just that.

There are five main recommendations:

• Let jurors discuss cases during breaks. They usually can't do that until they begin formal deliberations.

• Let jurors take their notes into deliberations.

• Let jurors submit questions to witnesses in civil cases, something they can already do in criminal cases.

• Allow judges to schedule expert witness testimony so it makes more sense for jurors. A judge could even create a panel discussion between experts.

• Encourage attorneys to provide a notebook that includes witness lists, exhibits and other information.

Two recommendations — allowing discussion before deliberations begin and allowing attorneys to provide a "notebook" — raise concerns.

Defense attorneys worry that allowing jurors to discuss a case before it's over could give more weight to the first testimony they hear. In criminal cases that's always the prosecution and that has some attorneys worried.

And it's easy to imagine attorneys creating jury notebooks that skew, even slightly, a juror's opinion about evidence or a defendant.

The other proposals make much sense; it's hard to imagine, in fact, that they aren't part of the process already.

Letting jurors who make notes refer to those notes certainly seems logical. In cases where a trial drags on for weeks, relying on notes, not just memory, must be preferred.

Letting jurors submit questions also makes sense. Skilled attorneys can confuse the simplest issues, and sometimes a single question can clear the fog.

Allowing judges, within reason, to arrange expert testimony so it helps jurors find the truth is an excellent step.

In the Mark Unger murder case in Benzie County, for example, competing experts offered widely divergent views on how Unger's wife died. Helping jurors understand complex issues can only promote justice.

The court will accept public input on the proposed changes until Nov. 1 at Supreme Court clerk, P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909 or by e-mail at MSC—clerk@courts.mi.gov. Refer to ADM File No. 2005-19. The proposed rules are also on the court's Web site at: www.courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt.

This is good public policy, and the court deserves praise for taking it on.