This article highlights the major events and empirical research in the continuing debate over the power and competence of the jury in civil and criminal trials. The concept of jury nullification, the power of the jury to return a verdict based upon their moral conscience despite the evidence and the law, is used as a convenient filter to discuss the legal and behavioral assumptions about jury power and performance. The legal, historical, and even behavioral contexts reflect a bipolar theme in the level of trust Americans have exhibited towards the jury system. One pole reflects the notion that juries lack predictability and rationality in their verdicts and are moved by emotional concerns. AntipodaUy, juries have been thought to reflect an historical competence at applying common sense notions of equity and rationality to conflicted and ambiguous cases. This article traces the history of these two views of jury power and competence. A critical review of the empirical research that may inform the debate about the jury's competence in both criminal and civil arenas is provided. This paper deals with the changing legal, historical, and social perceptions of the power of the American jury. We will also review the recent empirical research concerning the jury's performance and competence in an effort to inform the continuing debate about the proper role of the jury.Juries have the implicit power to acquit defendants despite evidence and judicial instructions to the contrary. This power, embedded in the phenomenon called jury nullification, has historically permitted sympathetic juries to acquit
