Trial by jury is one of the few rights that is specifically named in the American Constitution and it is in danger because judges and lawyers don't think it works very well. Often the American public doesn't think it works well either. The author analizes four different types of trials and walks the reader through them. Social science research is brought into the picture as well as post trial interviews with the jurors. The author lets the reader see what the jurors were thinking and why they voted the way they did. In the end, the conclusion is that the jurors did not fail the system. The judges and lawyers fail the jurors.

The last two chapters of the book are filled with potential solutions to the problem. I ended up marking entire pages with sticky notes. The author proposes that courts should be more jury friendly. Instructions given to the jury should be given at the beginning of the trial rather than the end - that way it would not be so easy for lawyers to confuse jurors and jurors would be able to sift out what is superfluous and concentrate on what is important. Jurors should be allowed to take notes. They should be able to ask Judges questions about points of law.

Perhaps the most important thing the author recommends is that jurors not be excused for mundane reasons. The idea of a jury is to have a cross section of people and that is not happening in the current legal setup. Juries are overwhelmingly made of people who have little education and the research shows that they are easily overwhelmed in a court room setting. Jury rooms should be made more comfortable. Instead of stuffing them into small over crowded anterooms, Juries should have rooms that are nicely appointed and are comfortable with adequate heating, cooling, and ventilation. (Most jury deliberation rooms don't have this.)

In many ways this was an amazing book and should be read by everyone who is a citizen of the U. S. If I ever serve on a jury I will know much more about what my rights as a juror are and will know to ask for the ability to take notes, ask for written transcripts of important testimony, and ask the judge questions about points of law.

I highly recommend this book. It isn't long and it is written in accessible language. The author takes the time to explain legal terms and procedures. Sometimes he even goes back deep into English history to explain judicial customs and law. ( )

In 1989, the American Bar Association· .. · obtained permission to conduct a study of jurors. They seated 'alternate juries in several cases and then videotaped the deliberations of the alternates, who often were not aware they were not the "real" jury. The ABA committee concluded, after examination of the tapes, that "many jurors were confused, misunderstood the instructions, failed to recall evidence, and suffered enormously from boredom and frustration." One anonymous juror even left behind this note:

"Oh give me a break, just a ten-minute break,
When I don't have to sit and listen to this shit,
Oh, give me a chance to get up and dance,
For it's such a bore, I long for the door. "

Stephen Adler explores the contradictions in our jury system, which we laud as the best in the 1.)world, 2.) hate the way it works, and 3.) do everything possible to avoid serving. He believes the system is eroding and will soon be changed. Other countries do just fine without juries (Japan and Israel among others). Germany and France have panels of judges. India dropped the jury system it had inherited from Britain, where even now only 1 % of civil trials and 5% of criminal trials are tried before juries.

The jury evolved in America as a subversive mechanism by which the people could thwart the will of the king, " ... to prevent royal decrees from being carried out." But it also served to provide witness that the government's evidence was valid and just: an endorsement of the charges.

The jury's role is to shape history. It is testimony to our faith in democratic ideals that ordinary people are challenged to decide what history will record, e.g., Mike Tyson is a rapist, William Kennedy Smith is not. We deny that right to a professional judiciary that might be subject to the whims of political agendas. Throughout history the power to take life has traditionally belonged to heads of state or their proxies. Our juries have the power to transcend inflexible laws and tailor verdicts to special circumstances. Juries remain awed by the death penalty and its concomitant responsibility. Judges soon see their role as commonplace and routine, not a perspective one would ever like to see applied to the state's fryer of people. ( )