A Potential Haven For the Type-A Juror? Still Waiting on the Research

I've been a checklist girl for as long as I can remember. When I was about eleven, I used the free PalmPilot my dad got with purchase of his laptop to keep track of my tasks--clean my room, feed the fish. To this day, I rely on multiple lists for groceries, general life to dos, and school assignments so that I will not forget anything (and the rush of dopamine when I cross something off does not hurt either).

Incorporating an Everyday Habit into Jury Duty
Would it be appropriate to introduce this "habit" into the jury box? Would it only help jurors who are wired like me (those who thrive on organization), leaving more free-spirited jurors paralyzed or distracted by the rigidity?

In 2003, Professor Valerie P. Hans and her colleagues tested a handful of trial innovations, including the juror checklist or "decision tree." While the mock jurors were informed that the checklist could be used to help them better understand the expert evidence in the cases, they were instructed to use the checklist however they wanted.

A Major Flaw in the Research Focus
The results indicated that eighty-six percent of mock jurors seemed to at least review the checklist in the groups where it was provided. However, one glaring problem in this research stems from the way in which jurors were observed. That is, a majority of the outcomes in the study on the use of the checklist focus on how few of the groups actually worked through the checklist in a systematic way--not individuals. 

One of the reports even seems to acknowledge the study's improper scope by stating that "[a]lthough collective work on the checklists is very low, it remains possible that individual jurors worked through them, in part or in whole, in a somewhat systematic way." Because checklists are most commonly thought to be aids for individuals, I find problematic the fact that the study only took note of the use of the lists in group settings.

With that in mind, of course many of these mock jurors felt like the checklists were a waste of time or unnecessary; this innovation should have been tested for individual use, allowing a juror to tick through the form as the DNA expert witnesses explained dense mtDNA content. Conversely, the mock jurors who had no trouble following the expert witnesses' testimony could feel free to disregard the checklists; the group deliberation time would then not be unnecessarily prolonged by more paperwork. 

This misguided focus in the study seems to have hindered the researchers from observing the vast benefits that checklists may provide jurors such as improving focus, providing more consistent results, and saving time.

The Verdict Is Far From In: More Testing Needed
There is still so little research on checklists for juries. In fact, any commentary on this innovation solely references Hans' work. Thus, at this point it isn't clear that these lists will do much good--besides allowing type-a jurors to feel on task as they perform their civic duty. 

As we await new research on this innovation, maybe we should just leave our lists at home for now.