Publication Date


Publication Title

Virginia Law Review


Having taken one of the longest and most deliberate looks at the jury in the history of that institution-as director of the University of Chicago Jury Project-Professor Kalven concludes first that contemporary criticism centers too largely on some-what extraneous considerations and too little on the central issue-the quality of jury-made as opposed to judge-made decisions. After pointing out that the extraneous issues-particularly the delay allegedly involved-are less critical than is widely supposed, he draws on the jury study data to show that juries are not baffled by the intricate case and do not have the simple biases with which they are credited or discredited. Rather, they differ with judges just enough to ",make it interesting" and to suggest that there is a special brand of "jury equity" which the author does not here expound in any detail but which he admires.

Included in

Law Commons