While judges and lawyers view jury trials as slower, less predictable and less cost-effective than other forms of case resolution, they also view them as fair and prefer them over alternatives, according to a national study released in December by the ABA Commission on the American Jury.

The study, titled “Reasons for the Disappearing Jury Trial: Perspectives from Attorneys and Judges” and published in the Louisiana Law Review, additionally showed that most judges and attorneys view jury trials as worth the costs associated with them.

In federal courts, civil case filings have increased since the early 1960s, but the percentage of civil cases disposed of by jury trial has decreased from about 5.5% in 1962 to 0.8% by 2013, according to a 2016 book referenced in the study.

In addition to asking judges and attorneys to rank four procedures used to resolve civil cases—arbitration, mediation, jury trials and bench trials—and two procedures used to resolve criminal cases—jury trials and bench trials—the study examined the possibility that litigants are pressured to settle their cases.

Lawyers perceived plaintiffs attorneys, mediators and judges as significant sources of pressure on plaintiffs to settle in civil cases, while judges did not view themselves or their peers as a frequent source of pressure.

In gauging the most common causes of the decline in civil jury trials, respondents indicated that damage caps and mandatory binding arbitration have had the greatest influence in reducing trial rates.

As a result, the study’s co-authors suggested eliminating or raising the level of damage caps, eliminating mandatory arbitration, reforming sentencing guidelines and abolishing mandatory minimums.

Read original article


Tags: