One of the first things that often goes through someone’s mind when they are summoned for jury duty is “how do I get out of this?” The time commitment, money lost or not earned, and a generalized lack of interest are the main reasons for such an initial reaction. However, what I have found over the years is that serving on a jury, as reported by jurors in post-trial interviews, is typically a satisfying experience. Jurors by and large express feeling proud after serving on a jury, are enlightened by the experience, and have a sense of fulfillment by actively taking part in democracy in action.

Interestingly, many jurors who I talk to are well aware of this drastic shift in attitude that takes place prior to and after serving on a jury – they mention that while initially frustrated and not looking forward to serving they end up quite glad and empowered that they actually did. Moreover, coinciding with this feeling of post-trial contentment is often a candid critique of the process, which shows that even for those who serve proudly and have no regrets, imperfections and frustrations about our jury system remain.

Post-trial comments accentuate the difficulty jurors have in grasping the jury instructions with little or no guidance along the way. The notion that jurors spend a great deal of time listening intently throughout the trial only to be thrown a major curveball when it comes time to decipher the law and deliberate, is not uncommon.

So what can be done? Just bringing this issue to the forefront is good for starters. We need to think about the law in terms of how a jury will see it and wherever necessary and possible simplify it. For starters, lawyers should ensure that when they draft the charges or claims, they are as simple as possible so that the ensuing jury instructions are not needlessly complex.

Juror comprehension of the law is impeded because lawyers, in some venues, are restricted from mentioning the law. As long as the jury is reminded it is the judge who ultimately defines the law for them there is nothing wrong in permitting attorneys to allude to the law in openings and closings as long as it is done accurately.

If the law uses non-everyday terms such as “racketeering,” “malice aforethought” or “exculpatory evidence,” for example, jurors should not hear these words and phrases for the first time when being read the instructions. And if allowed, walk jurors through the Verdict Form, especially if it is a complex one.

Those in the law take for granted that juries are not lawyers. More needs to be done to appreciate the significance of their inexperience with the law and to do more to ensure that the often thankless job jurors do becomes more manageable to them and less overwhelming. That way, the jury experience of participating in democracy in action will be even more enhanced.