The Jury: The Ideal and Reality of an American Institution.

The first question that comes to mind when you see a book about juries written by the legal editor of the Wall Street Journal is, "Why would a plaintiff's trial lawyer want to read a book bashing juries by a spokesman for corporate America?"

Notwithstanding the title and the author's possible bias, the last sentence in the book correctly reflects the book's central theme: "There is disorder in the courtroom but not despair. The jury system can be saved and is, for all our disappointments, well worth saving."

Adler writes about six juries that served at trials of more than ordinary interest. He interviewed the jurors about both their good and bad courtroom experiences. He questioned them about their perceptions of the evidence they heard, their reactions to witnesses, and their deliberations.

Adler apparently became interested in writing the work after covering the trial of an antitrust case between cigarette makers. The case, which had been scheduled to run less than 10 weeks, dragged on for seven months. In Adler's juror interviews following the trial, it became obvious that many of the complex economic theories critical to the decision were beyond the jurors' grasp. Moreover, the basis for their decision was irrational from the author's viewpoint.

Adler devotes a chapter to a Texas jury, whose members had agreed in advance that they would be able to consider issuing a death sentence in a straightforward murder case and a nearly straightforward death penalty case. The author generally believes the jury did a good job, and his account of the impact of the case on jurors shows considerable insight.

Adler was less impressed by the jury's performance in other cases. He cited the prosecution of Imelda Marcos, suggesting the verdict was based on "ignorance and misplaced sympathy." He was concerned with the "deep pocket" mentality of a Colorado jury where a person with AIDS had brought action against a blood bank. He was fascinated by the credibility assessments jurors made in a "he said/she said" murder case where an exhusband had shot the wife's new lover.

The author seems to sit as the 13th juror in most of these cases--smarter, wiser, less easily misled, attentive, and confident of his own perceptions in how to judge the truthfulness of a particular witness or the relevancy of evidence or argument presented. He perceives his mission as disabusing us of the notion that juries are accurately depicted in the movie "Twelve Angry Men."

The author is convinced the jury is necessary to perpetuate democratic ideals of justice, and he does not question the sincerity of jurors at the trials he covered. Although he restates negative arguments by Dan Quayle and other adversaries of the jury system, he also analyzes the weaknesses of their arguments.

Generally, Adler favors the jury system as a trier of fact but suggests changes to improve the process. He suggests eliminating exemptions to jury service and restricting peremptory challenges and voir dire so that a broader cross section of the community will actually serve. His solutions with respect to the sitting jury seem reasonable. He would accord more recognition for the comforts of jurors to show respect for the comforts of jurors to system. He urges judges to give jurors pre-trial instructions that will help them put evidence they will hear at trial in context. He encourages courts to use handbooks to educate jurors about the process and their role in it.

The author recognizes (1) that when instructing jurors a judge must follow the language of appellate courts in order to have a protected record and (2) that a lay jury may have trouble understanding complicated terms. He encourages judges to pay attention to social science research and to update their instructions regarding the fallibility of witnesses' perceptions and retentions rather than using 19th-century stereotypes that are embedded in most standard instructions. He encourages appellate courts to cut the judge some slack using lay language in juror instructions.

The author urges consideration of jurors' need for information that will help them better understand what is going on at trial. He describes procedures used in some courtrooms that permit jurors to submit written questions for review and answer by the judge after consultation with counsel. Adler also points out that jurors are at a disadvantage in not being able to take notes and preserve information in the same way that the judge and the lawyers do.

Even readers who disagree with the author's views of and suggested remedies for the American jury system will find The Jury to be both stimulating and provocative.