Note: The act of "disrobing" allows us to see what is underneath, yet also signifies the removal of power and authority, especially in a legal context. In my talk I hope to lift the hem of the jury's robe, reporting research on jury damage awards and summarizing what I believe it shows about the strengths and limitations of jury decision making in this context. I also want to argue against contemporary efforts to "disrobe" the jury, removing its authority to decide compensatory and punitive damages.

1. Attacks on the civil jury focus on their supposed incompetence and bias in deciding damages, for example:
   • The civil jury is pro-plaintiff and anti-business, a modern-day Robin Hood.
     
   • Civil jurors have serious problems comprehending trial evidence and legal instructions, particularly in complex cases.
     
   • As a result of their bias and incompetence, civil jury awards are erratic, unpredictable, paltry, or excessive.
     
   • The civil jury is especially incompetent in deciding punitive damages.

2. Civil jury reform efforts to disrobe the jury, based on its supposed limitations

   • Limiting civil jury's role and scope, bypassing civil jury in some cases
     
   • Limiting damage awards, especially pain and suffering
     
   • Limiting or eliminating the jury's role in punitive damages
     

3. Empirical research on the civil jury addresses the claims of jury bias and incompetence
   • Archival analysis of jury trial outcomes
     
   • Post-trial juror interviews
     
   • Judge-jury agreement studies
     
   • Field experiments
     
   • Jury simulation experiments
     

4. Research shows that the civil jury...
   • Is generally competent as a fact finder
     
   • Reflects opinions and biases of the community
     
   • Has some problems with complex evidence and legal instructions
     
   • Can be strengthened through jury reforms

5. Compensatory damage award decisions

   Good news:
   + Median award is rather modest, in contrast to highly publicized multi-million dollar awards
   + Archival studies show strong correlation between injury level and award amount
   + Awards are predicted from legally relevant factors
   + "Vertical" equity - more serious injuries generally receive more compensation
   + No apparent "deep pockets" effect
   + Research is testing different methods of guiding damages decision making
   

   Not so good news:
   - "Horizontal" inequity: similar injuries may receive different awards
   - Undercompensation of severe injuries
   - Overcompensation of small losses, particularly with caps
   - Caps, the favored reform, do not appear to improve rationality of damage decisions
   

6. Punitive damages and the civil jury
   • AO/NCSC data on civil juries show that punitive damages awards are rare, and occur most often in intentional tort cases
     
   • Exxon-funded mock jury research finds problems with punitive damages decision making by juries, but has been subject to methodological criticism
     
   • Competing briefs in State Farm v. Campbell argued for/against continuing civil jury role in punitive damages

7. Verdict on the civil jury and damage awards:
   • Empirical research has identified some strengths, some areas in need of improvement, and is testing some viable reforms to improve damage decision making
   • Jurors, keep your robes on!