Eugene Lucci (Court of Appeals of Ohio, 11th District), The Case for Allowing Jurors to Submit Written Questions, 89 Judicature 16 (July–Aug. 2005) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Juror questioning of witnesses is neither novel nor radical — it traces to eighteenth-century English common law and American practice dating to 1825. Yet as adversarial procedure evolved, jurors were increasingly relegated to passive observers. This article argues for restoring a modest measure of juror participation through written questions submitted to the trial judge, and offers a framework of procedural safeguards to govern the practice. Drawing on five years of personal experience allowing written juror questions in well over one hundred civil and criminal trials, the author reports that more than ninety percent of juror questions are substantively sound, that most seek clarification of testimony already in the record, and that trial counsel generally embrace the practice after experiencing it firsthand. The article addresses and rebuts the principal objections — unpredictable testimony, delay, and premature deliberation — and takes particular issue with the argument that juror confusion benefits criminal defendants by manufacturing reasonable doubt. Central to the analysis is the proposition that the search for truth remains a legitimate and primary function of the jury trial, and that a confused jury serves neither party, nor the community. When a juror’s written question assists in that search for truth and the trial judge, acting as gatekeeper, deems it appropriate, the question should be asked.
To receive new posts from Legal Theory Blog by email, get a free subscription to Legal Theory Stack.
Lawrence Solum