The Significance of Table Shape in Jury Deliberation Rooms

Having a jury that is representative of the population is a critical feature of the American legal system. This is because a representative jury is a diverse jury, and a discussion between twelve diverse individuals is bound to result in a fair and accurate verdict. To reach that end, all twelve jurors must fully participate in the discussion. This begs the question: how do we encourage jurors to fully participate in deliberations?

One simple change could be the shape of the table in a jury deliberation room. Just as table shape in a conference room correlates to the productivity of a meeting, table shape in a jury deliberation room correlates to juror participation in deliberations. There are both advantages and disadvantages to having a round table versus a rectangular table.

Advantages of Round Table Shape

As you’ll recall, King Arthur’s round table served as an indication that everyone who sat at the table was equal. Without an established head-of-table position, round or oval tables are more likely to promote a sense of egalitarianism. In this way, having a round table could boost juror participation by making everyone feel equal and perhaps more comfortable to speak. Imagine a jury deliberation where all twelve representative members fully participate by sharing diverse perspectives—a fair and accurate verdict seems inevitable. Why do courts not require rounds tables in all jury deliberation rooms? 

Disadvantages of Round Table Shape

Without the head-of-table position, deliberations may very well go awry. When considering twelve diverse perspectives, it may be necessary to have a leader that guides and steers the conversation where it needs to go. That’s what the foreperson is for, right? Yes, except even a chosen leader (such as the foreperson) may struggle to lead when seated at a round table where everyone is equal. In this way, having a round table may hinder the foreperson’s leadership so that deliberations, though fully participated in, don’t actually make it anywhere near a unanimous verdict, thereby resulting in more hung juries. Likewise, the full participation encouraged by round tables is more likely to result in slower decision-making because there is more to discuss. As time goes on, and as participation continues, the likelihood of a unanimous verdict seems low.

The American Court System Needs Corners in Jury Deliberation Rooms

A round or oval table is more conducive to juror participation, but with full juror participation comes (lengthy) indecision. On the other hand, a rectangular table enables someone, assuming the foreperson, to lead jury deliberations in the right direction—towards a fair and accurate verdict. It could be argued that a round table, where every juror feels comfortable enough to participate in discussions, is the only way in which a fair and accurate verdict can be achieved. But, this assumes that a verdict is achieved at all. While round or oval tables are conducive to juror participation, they are also conducive to slower decision-making. The court system moves slow enough as it is, perhaps placing round tables in jury deliberation rooms will only worsen clogged dockets. Even though a rectangular table may not encourage a juror to participate in deliberations, neither does it restrict a juror from fully participating. Likewise, even though a round or oval table may encourage a juror to participate in deliberations, it does not necessarily mean that the juror will participate. In the end, it is up to jury members to speak for themselves and to reach a verdict they feel is fair and accurate—even if sitting at a table with corners.