Juries Judging Science

Abstract

Contemporary jury trials often include complex scientific evidence that can be challenging for lay jurors to understand and evaluate. This Article examines the capabilities of jurors to comprehend and apply scientific evidence in both criminal and civil trials. It begins by summarizing existing research on individual and collective jury decision-making competence, describing both the cognitive processes that jurors use to evaluate trial testimony and the contributions of group deliberation. The Article then explores the specific types of scientific evidence that are most challenging for jurors, including scientific research methods, statistical information, and probability estimates. It also examines the influence of factors such as the nature of the presentation of scientific evidence in court and jurors’ pre-existing attitudes toward science. Finally, the Article proposes reforms to jury trials and the presentation of expert scientific testimony. These include active jury reforms such as juror notetaking, question asking, and discussions during trial, improved methods for presenting scientific evidence, and the use of tutorials to enhance juror comprehension. By addressing the challenges jurors face, these reforms aim to improve the accuracy and fairness of jury decisions in cases with scientific evidence.