The cognitive effects of jury aids on decision-making in complex civil litigation

Abstract

Two hundred seventy nine individuals served as mock jury members in a civil trial that involved multiple plaintiffs and several expert witnesses. Juries were or were not provided with written summary statements of the testimony of expert scientific witnesses, and were either permitted or not permitted to take notes. The results showed that the combination of summary statements and notetaking had a synergistic effect on the quality of decision-making. Mock juries enabled by both cognitive aids provided significantly higher awards, as compared to mock juries aided by one or none of the jury-aids, to the most severely injured plaintiffs without increasing compensation for those less worthy. Aided mock juries also recalled more probative evidence than non-aided jurors, and were more satisfied with the efficacy of their deliberations.

The impact of note taking style and note availability at retrieval on mock jurors’ recall and recognition of trial information

“…The impact of note taking style and note access at retrieval on recall during deliberations is unknown. On the few occasions when collaborative remembering has been examined in the literature, homogenous groups of freestyle note takers (with note access) and non-note takers have been compared (e.g., ForsterLee et al, 2005). Real deliberations may contain jurors who opt to take notes and those who opt not to take notes.…”

“…Individual freestyle note takers also provide more complete and accurate responses when answering cued recall questions about trial evidence (Hope, Eales, & Mirashi, 2014). When freestyle note takers collaborate in groups of 5 or 6 (ForsterLee, Kent, & Horowitz, 2005) or groups of 12 (Horowitz & Bordens, 2002) to freely recall as much trial information as possible then they also outperform similar sized groups of non-note takers. Similarly, when freestyle note takers collaborate in groups of 5 or 6 to complete a recognition test that requires them to discriminate between true and false trial information then they are also more accurate than equivalent sized groups of non-note takers (Horowitz & ForsterLee, 2001).…”

Assisting jurors: Promoting recall of trial information through the use of a trial‐ordered notebook

“…Frequent calls for jury reform within adversarial systems and concerns about the use of juries in complex trials have stimulated research on the ways in which jurors might be assisted in their task (e.g., Brewer, Harvey, & Semmler, ; Elek, Ware, & Ratcliff, ; FosterLee et al ., ; Martire & Kemp, ). In particular, research has focused on innovations which increase the involvement or engagement of the juror in the trial for example, encouraging juror note taking, allowing jurors to ask questions during the trial, and permitting jury discussion during trials (Dann & Hans, ; Robbennolt, Groscup, Penrod, & Heuer, ).…”

“…When members of the public are requested to attend jury service, they enter an environment and process that is peculiar and unfamiliar to them (FosterLee, Kent, & Horowitz, ). This experience can be stressful and confusing for many jurors (see Dabbs, ; Feldman & Bell, ; Hafemeister & Ventis, ; Kaplan & Winget, ).…”

“…In particular, attention has been paid to role of juror note taking during trials as a means to facilitate both understanding and recall of the evidence and key legal issues (Flango, ; FosterLee, Horowitz, & Bourgeois, ; Heuer & Penrod, ; Horowitz & FosterLee, ). A number of studies have reported enhanced recall of trial material among note takers (FosterLee et al ., ; Horowitz & FosterLee, ; Rosenhan, Eisner, & Robinson, ). Rosenhan et al .…”