In Defense of Civil Juries

Criticism of the civil jury system is nothing new. In fact, virtually since its inception the civil jury has been embroiled in controversy. Typically critics argue that: the jury cannot handle the complex or technical case; there is great expense and delay attendant to trial by jury; jury adjudication is of low quality; verdicts rendered by different juries in cases involving similar facts often appear inconsistent. Recently, Justice Donald Alexander of the Maine Superior Court stated that "[t]he civil jury system has outlived its usefulness." In support of his basic premise that the civil jury system is merely an historical artifact, Justice Alexander reiterated some of the general criticisms that have been voiced by other commentators. He also raised some specific concerns based on his experience as a trial judge on the Maine Superior Court. Justice Alexander opined that under the present jury system the rights of potential jurors are disregarded, that the financial and temporal costs of the civil jury are too high, and that a jury trial in a complex matter has the potential of depriving the litigants of due process. These problems, in his view, require massive reform of the civil jury system. This Article does not examine these criticisms exhaustively. Rather, it considers some of the concerns raised by Justice Alexander in light of the Author's experience conducting civil litigation in Maine. On the basis of this experience, the Author believes strongly that the civil jury has continuing vitality and that many commonly held beliefs about shortcomings of the jury system are not justified.