We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Research participants” feedback about their participation experiences offers critical insights for improving programs. A shared Empowering the Participant Voice (EPV) infrastructure enabled a multiorganization collaborative to collect, analyze, and act on participants’ feedback using validated participant-centered measures.
Methods:
A consortium of academic research organizations with Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) programs administered the Research Participant Perception Survey (RPPS) to active or recent research participants. Local response data also aggregated into a Consortium database, facilitating analysis of feedback overall and for subgroups.
Results:
From February 2022 to June 2024, participating organizations sent surveys to 28,096 participants and received 5045 responses (18%). Respondents were 60% female, 80% White, 13% Black, 2% Asian, and 6% Latino/x. Most respondents (85–95%) felt respected and listened to by study staff; 68% gave their overall experience the top rating. Only 60% felt fully prepared by the consent process. Consent, feeling valued, language assistance, age, study demands, and other factors were significantly associated with overall experience ratings. 63% of participants said that receiving a summary of the study results would be very important to joining a future study. Intersite scores differed significantly for some measures; initiatives piloted in response to local findings raised experience scores.
Conclusion:
RPPS results from 5045 participants from seven CTSAs provide a valuable evidence base for evaluating participants’ research experiences and using participant feedback to improve research programs. Analyses revealed opportunities for improving research practices. Sites piloting local change initiatives based on RPPS findings demonstrated measurable positive impact.
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.
Offering an alternative view of the jury process, this book argues that each stage transforms ordinary citizens, who are oftentimes reluctant to serve on juries, into responsible jurors. Jurors, Professor Marder argues, are not found, but rather they are made and shaped by the jury process. This book analyzes each stage of this process, from initial summons to post-verdict interview, and shows how these stages equip jurors with experiences and knowledge that allow them to perform their new role ably. It adopts a holistic approach to the subject of jury reform and suggests reforms that will aid the transformation of citizens into jurors. By studying the jury from the perspective of jurors, it gives readers a better understanding of what takes place during jury trials and allows them to see juries, jurors, and the jury process in a new light.
Although most countries around the world use professional judges, they also rely on lay citizens, untrained in the law, to decide criminal cases. The participation of lay citizens helps to incorporate community perspectives into legal outcomes and to provide greater legitimacy for the legal system and its verdicts. This book offers a comprehensive and comparative picture of how nations use lay people in legal decision-making. It provides a much-needed, in-depth analysis of the different approaches to citizen participation and considers why some countries' use of lay participation is long-standing whereas other countries alter or abandon their efforts. This book examines the many ways in which countries around the world embrace, reject, or reform the way in which they use ordinary citizens in legal decision-making.
Many countries around the globe rely on ordinary citizens, untrained in the law, to decide the guilt or innocence of their fellow citizens. Some countries use all-layperson juries, while others use mixed tribunals or mixed courts in which professional judges and lay citizens work together to decide a case. Still other countries use lay magistrates or lay judges working alone or on panels. This book provides a view of the different forms of lay participation and the ways in which they are evolving. It offers a comprehensive picture of how some countries have made recent and remarkable advances toward lay decision-making, while others have a long-standing form of lay participation that is well accepted in that country. Still other countries have faced challenges with lay participation and have opted for limiting the scope of lay legal decision-making or even abolishing it. The organization of this book illustrates that lay participation in a country is not fixed in stone; lay participation is being advanced, reinforced, or replaced in countries around the world. These shifting responses to lay participation suggest the prime importance of stepping back and taking a global perspective.