Chapter 4 examines jury instructions, which are given orally by the judge to provide guidance to the jurors, including an understanding of the relevant law. The traditional view of jury instructions is that jurors are rational problem-solvers who just need to be told the law to apply. According to the transformation view, however, the reading of the instructions provides an experience for the jurors that is far more than simply the conveyance of information about the law. The judge’s reading of the instructions as the jurors sit together in the jury box ensures that all of the jurors hear the instructions from start to finish, as a group, and that everyone in the courtroom, including the jurors, senses the important role the instructions play. If jury instructions are understood as part of the jury process of helping jurors to assume their role as jurors, then the oral reading by the judge needs to be supplemented by certain aids so that jurors understand the substance of the instructions. Jurors need to be given an individual written copy of the instructions; they should be permitted to take notes, and to submit written questions about the instructions to the judge.

Chapter 6 explores the final stage of the jury process, the post-verdict interview with the judge. This interview provides an opportunity for the judge to thank jurors for their service, to answer their remaining questions, to provide them with information about issues that might arise after they leave the courthouse, and to give them an opportunity to share their jury experience with the judge. The traditional view often overlooks the post-verdict interview with the judge. Some judges provide such an interview; others do not. However, the post-verdict interview can play an important role in the jurors' transformation. It can help jurors leave their public role as jurors and return to their lives as private citizens. The post-verdict interview also helps jurors to end their jury service on a positive note. This is important so that when they return to their family and friends they will serve as emissaries for the jury system, and might even become more engaged citizens. The post-verdict interview also gives judges the opportunity to learn about the jurors' experience and to discover how the jury process can be improved for future jurors.

Chapter 3 considers peremptory challenges and how they impede the transformation of citizens into jurors. The traditional view of peremptory challenges is that they help to seat an impartial jury. Peremptory challenges permit lawyers to remove a certain number of prospective jurors without having to give a reason. One problem is that lawyers are ill-equipped to uncover subtle juror biases during voir dire. Another problem is that lawyers continue to exercise peremptory challenges in a discriminatory manner. According to the transformation view, the jury needs to consist of a diverse group of jurors. The transformation view rejects the goal of trying to weed out subtle biases that cannot really be known in favor of the goal of increasing jury diversity. Eliminating peremptory challenges altogether is the most effective way of stopping discriminatory peremptory challenges, particularly because other methods have fallen short. Even with the elimination of peremptory challenges, for cause challenges should remain. They allow the judge to remove the extreme cases of biased jurors, such as those who admit that they are biased.

Chapter 1 sets the stage for the challenge that the American jury system faces. Citizens receive a jury summons requiring them to appear in court. They are often dismayed when they receive their summons. Those who heed it often do so reluctantly. The traditional view of the summons is that it is just an isolated step designed to bring a sufficient number of prospective jurors to the courthouse. The transformation view, however, is that the experience of receiving a summons and going to the courthouse are unusual events that begin to transform the outlook and behavior of those who are ultimately selected as jurors. Even at this early stage of the jury process, there are steps that courts can take to assist in the transformation of citizens into jurors. They can design summonses that are written clearly, provide answers to frequently asked questions, and reassure citizens that they do not need any special knowledge to serve as jurors. The summons, which courts view mainly as a vehicle to bring citizens to the courthouse, should instead be viewed as a form of outreach that begins the transformation of citizens into responsible jurors.

If, as this book argues, jurors are made, not found, and it is the stages of the jury process that transform jurors into responsible jurors, what are the implications of this new understanding of the American jury system? One implication is that more citizens can serve as jurors. The traditional view is that only those who enter the courtroom as ready-to-serve jurors can be jurors, but this is a limited view of who can serve. If, instead, the jury process is what brings about the transformation of citizens into jurors, then most citizens can serve. In the United States, citizens who might have doubts about their ability to be a juror should be reassured that they can serve, and serve well. Citizens in other countries who might have doubts about their ability to be jurors, particularly in countries that do not have a tradition of juries, should also be reassured. If the stages of their jury process track those in the United States, and their judges play a similar role as judges in the United States, then their jury process will transform citizens into jurors too.

Chapter 5 looks at deliberations. The traditional view of deliberations is that jurors are capable from the moment they are selected to deliberate in a way that yields a fair and just verdict. In contrast, the transformation view recognizes that jurors must perform a task for which they have not volunteered; they must be aware of their personal biases and try not to be swayed by them; they must deliberate to try to reach a unanimous verdict with a group of strangers; and they must decide the facts and apply the law even though both are new to them. However, the experiences they have gone through as jurors have helped to prepare them to deliberate. In addition, the setting and structure of the deliberations help them to maintain the necessary discipline. The jurors are secluded in the jury room; they are required to vote and to give reasons to the group; if unanimity is required they must come to a group understanding; and they must make a decision that has serious consequences. There are features of deliberations that help jurors to assume their role as jurors, such as having a foreperson, a diverse jury, a group deliberation, and the judge's instructions.

Chapter 2 focuses on voir dire, or the questioning of prospective jurors. The traditional view is that this stage is supposed to enable judges and lawyers to determine which prospective jurors are biased and need to be removed and which are unbiased and can serve on the jury. The transformation view is that voir dire has little value as a means of finding jurors who have subtle biases, but it has a lot of value in helping to transform citizens into impartial jurors. Other than in extreme cases of bias, there is little evidence that the kind of biases that everyone has can or should be identified during voir dire. Instead, voir dire really begins the process of helping prospective jurors to put aside their private concerns, to understand the need to manage their own biases, and to see themselves as part of a group endeavor. There is often a moment when prospective jurors stop formulating their excuses and start thinking about serving. At that moment, a transformation begins in earnest. This chapter also describes how voir dire can be reformed to bring about the transformation of citizens into jurors even more effectively than current practice does.

How does a group of strangers, many of whom are initially unhappy about serving as jurors, become a jury that works together as a group to reach a unanimous verdict based on the evidence that was presented to them during the trial and who leave their experience satisfied with the job they have done and with the jury system? The answer lies in the jury process and the way in which it transforms citizens into jurors. The various stages of the jury process, including the summons, voir dire, instructions, and deliberations, help citizens to step into their role as jurors. The final stage, the post-verdict interview with the judge, helps jurors to leave their role as jurors behind and to resume their lives as private citizens who will serve as emissaries for the jury. Although the jury process carries out this transformation of citizens into jurors reasonably well, there is still room for improvement. Each of the stages of the jury process can be improved upon by looking at the process as a whole rather than each stage in isolation, and by ensuring that any reforms further the transformation of citizens into jurors.