Empowering jurors to ask questions about the expert evidence in criminal trials

Abstract

Jurors in common law jurisdictions receive a large amount of complex information about their role in the court process at the start of the trial. One common instruction is that, if the jurors have any questions, they can put their questions in writing to the judge. This article explores whether the current jury question process offers jurors a viable way in which to fill in perceived gaps in their comprehension of expert evidence. It does so by providing rare insight into the views of real jurors, judges, expert witnesses and lawyers from 55 Australian criminal jury trials. The results reveal that whilst most study participants believed jurors should be able to ask questions during the trial, in practice, some jurors were either too intimidated or unaware that they could do so. These findings should help inform judges as to how best to moderate the jury question process. Ensuring that jurors feel comfortable to ask questions of experts is likely to reduce the need for jurors to seek answers to their questions online and consequently safeguards the imperative of all adversarial justice systems; to offer a fair trial, based on the evidence presented during the trial.