Previous Document

7.1. Juror comprehension in complex trials


The starting point for any discussion on the value of presentation
technologies in complex trials is to ask whether there is a significant
problem. Roskill (1986) referred to 'the fraud case of such complexity and
difficulty that it cannot reasonably be expected to be understood by a jury
selected at random' and, although their research was only with mock juries,
they concluded that

   Nevertheless, the research findings strongly support the view of
   experienced observers and the promptings of common sense, that the
   most complex of fraud cases will exceed the limits of comprehension of
   members of a jury...' (p142).
   
As Levi (1988) points out, this was little more than assertion. Six years
later, post-Blue Arrow, the majority of the Roberts Committee of the English
Bar Council concluded that 'the record of juries in fraud trials has in the
main been impressive' (Roberts (1993)). Such research as there is into how
juries reach their decisions, particularly in complex trials (see McCabe
(1988), Harding (1988), Levi (1988)) has little to say about juror
comprehension of complex evidence.

Research was carried out for the Roskill Report into improving the
presentation of information to juries in fraud trials: see Roskill (1986). As
Levi (1988) puts it,

   ... the difference between the fact of incomprehension [in the
   circumstances of the mock jury] and assertions that juries cannot
   understand is revealed by the research findings that the use of graphs
   and diagrams increased juror comprehension of specimen balance sheets
   by up to 20 per cent; the provision of a glossary of technical terms
   prior to the judicial summing up improved recall by 55 per cent; and
   changes in the format of the summary of an argument almost doubled the
   comprehension rate of those who listened to the preceding debate.
                                                                        [PP94] 
The Roberts committee reached the same conclusion (perhaps based on 'the view
of experienced observers and the promptings of common sense') that jury
comprehension could be improved by giving them such aids as summaries of key
statements and contested evidence. Reporting on a study of juror comprehension
in Hong Kong, Findlay (1991) points out the wide variety of factors which seem
to inhibit juror understanding, many of which seem to relate to inadequacies
in the judge's summing up. He suggests a number of strategies to enhance
understanding, including computerised exhibit lists and computerised
transcript with hypertext cross-referencing, but no reference to the use of
graphics.

The Roskill studies recommended that the graphs be well designed (ie. have
informative captions, clearly labelled axes etc.) to achieve maximal
understanding. This caution must be applied to all of the technologies
described in this section. The software tools merely allow for simple creation
of exhibits. It is up to the user to ensure that there is a conceptual clarity
in the items so created.



                                                            Next Document