Jurors can take notes, ask questions

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (WOOD/AP) - Jurors can take notes, pose questions for witnesses and discuss evidence during trials under new rules released Wednesday by the Michigan Supreme Court.

The changes bring Michigan in line with some other states and, in some instances, federal courts, Chief Justice Robert Young Jr. said.

"They give jurors basic tools to do a more effective job at what they're supposed to do, which is to find the truth," Young said in an interview.

The changes, which take effect in September, have been in the works since 2005 and follow a two-year test in 12 Michigan courts. Young said it still will be up to judges to choose to use them during trials.

"Our profession is virtually allergic to change. ... My guess is judges will allow this. Only the most hidebound will continue to treat the jury as though they're kindergarteners," Young said.

The 12 Michigan courts in the test included one in St. Joseph County and one in Muskegon, where Judge Timothy Hicks learned to love them.

"Jurors want to be involved," the judge told 24 Hour News 8. "They have questions, they want to be able to talk about it right away. All the things all of us do in every day life."

If a juror has a question for a witness, the judge first will screen it for appropriateness. The changes allow jurors to take notes, discuss testimony before a civil or criminal trial ends and ask to visit a place where a crime or something important occurred.

Besides opening and closing statements, attorneys are allowed to give "interim commentary" during trials if a judge agrees.

Young said there's never been a formal ban on jurors taking notes but it's been a tradition that needs to be thrown out.

"This is just crazy," he said. "If you told a judge, 'You're going to sit through the trial, you can't take a single note, and then make a judgment' — they'd bust a gut."

Justice Diane Hathaway was the lone dissenter on the seven-member Supreme Court. While taking notes and asking questions have a "valid place in our judicial system," she said there are other changes that could cause problems if judges force attorneys to follow them, especially jurors discussing evidence during a trial.

Hathaway, a former Wayne County judge, said she's not convinced the rules will improve trials.

"Although some of these procedures may in theory benefit jurors, we must be mindful that the litigants' rights are always paramount, and we should not adopt procedures that potentially endanger these rights," she wrote.

During the two-year test-run, 64% of jurors said their ability to submit questions, written and vetted by the judge and lawyers, increased fairness, and 72% said it increased their understanding of what was going on.

But lawyers were less thrilled. Only 35% of the lawyers thought it made the trial fairer and 49% said it improved juror understanding.

"One thing is, the attorneys questions are designed to paint a picture for the jury, not neccessarily to elicit information," Judge Hicks said, adding some lawyers see jurors asking questions as an intrusion. But, he said, the court can carefully manage that.

The disparity between jurors and lawyers is more pointed when it comes to discussion of the evidence as the case plays out:

• 91% of jurors thought it helped them understand the evidence and render a better verdict
• Only 10% of the lawyers thought so.

"I think the lawyers are afraid that they'll lock into the plaintiff or prosecution position because that side usually presents proof first," Hicks said. "But the experience I had talking to jurors after a trial showed me that wasn't the case. In fact what happened was almost the opposite. The jurors identified points of difference and were paying more attention when later witnesses testified."

24 Hour News 8's Henry Erb contributed to this report.