Arizona courts implement far-reaching jury changes.

New rules have significantly changed the way civil trials are conducted in Arizona. Beginning on December 1, state courts began implementing the following standard procedures:

* Attorneys may make "mini" opening statements before voir dire to better establish a basis for identifying bias among prospective jurors.

* Judges may instruct jurors at the beginning of trial as well as at the end to improve their understanding of substantive legal issues.

* Jurors may take notes. At civil trials they will routinely be given special notebooks containing copies of preliminary jury instructions, trial exhibits, key documents, and photos of witnesses.

* Jurors are allowed to ask questions of witnesses. This is done in writing, through the judge.

* In civil cases but not in criminal cases, jurors are allowed to discuss the evidence among themselves as the trial progresses.

* Judges may place appropriate time limits on trials. Judges may help deadlocked jurors arrive at a decision. This assistance could include polling jurors and allowing jurors to hear additional evidence or arguments from lawyers for the limited purpose of answering questions and avoiding a hung jury.

"We view these changes with optimism," said Denis Malm, president of the Arizona Trial Lawyers Association. "We hope that they will make the process more meaningful and understandable for jurors."

Malm said that early instruction would help jurors better understand legal issues and weigh evidence appropriately. With reference to time limits, he said, "The rules provide an opportunity to set time limits, but I doubt that judges will resort to that often. If one side or the other is abusing the system, the judge will have the right to intervene."

The recent changes were recommended by a special Committee on More Effective Use of Juries, made up of former jurors, academics, lawyers, and judges. Last year the committee concluded a two-year study by proposing 55 specific changes ranging from more sensitive methods for selecting and handling jurors to higher pay and revised trial procedures. (Arizona Commission Proposes Far-reaching Changes to jury Procedures, TRIAL, Feb. 1995, at 17.

The five members of the state supreme court, three of whom are former trial court judges, voted unanimously to accept nearly all of the special committee's recommendations.

A proposal to allow jurors to discuss evidence during criminal trials has been shelved pending the outcome of a constitutional challenge to a 1994 murder conviction. (Margaret A. Jacobs, Arizona Supreme Court Approves Major Changes in Jury Practices, Wall St. J., Nov. 2, 1995, at B12.

"The Arizona trial lawyers want to give these rules a chance to work," said Malm.

Some proposals opposed by the trial lawyers were either rejected or shelved. These included a recommendation to speed up trials by allowing summaries of depositions to be presented to jurors instead of the depositions themselves.

Some recommendations approved by the court await legislative action. These include raising juror pay from $12 to $40 per day and taking measures to ensure that jury panels arc more economically and ethnically diverse.