Drawing on the experiences of alternative decision‐makers: Can we preserve the jury in complex civil litigation?

Abstract

Many have questioned the wisdom of using traditional juries to decide cases involving complex scientific and technical evidence. Alternative decision‐makers that have been proposed include: judges; expert arbitrators; special juries composed of people who possess either a minimum level of higher education or knowledge especially relevant to the issues in the particular trial; and panels of experts in the particular field, acting as either a jury or a non‐jury tribunal. These alternatives differ from the traditional jury not only in their composition but also, to varying degrees, in terms of the resources available to them and the procedures under which they operate. In this article, we explore the advantages that these alternative decision‐makers have over juries and discuss how the same resources and procedures enjoyed by the alternatives could be made available to and enhance the abilities of the traditional jury in cases involving complex evidence.