Should the justice system sustain remote operations in a post-pandemic world? Commentators are skeptical, particularly regarding online jury trials. Some of this skepticism stems from empirical concerns. This paper explores two oft-expressed concerns for sustaining remote jury trials: first, that using video as a communication medium will dehumanize parties to a case, reducing the human connection from in-person interactions and making way for less humane decision-making; and second, that video trials will diminish the ability of jurors to detect witness deception or mistake. Our review of relevant literature suggests that both concerns are likely misplaced. Although there is reason to exercise caution and to include strong evaluation with any migration online, available research suggests that video will neither materially affect juror perceptions of parties nor alter the jurors’ (nearly nonexistent) ability to discern truthful from deceptive or mistaken testimony. On the first point, the most credible studies from the most analogous situations suggest video interactions cause little or no effect on human decisions. On the second point, a well-developed body of social science research shows a consensus that human detection accuracy is only slightly above chance levels, and that such accuracy is the same whether the interaction is in person or virtual.

Resistance to the state is the theme of the final chapter. Chapter 7 contends that reluctant defendants were rejecting the trial jury; however, it was not the mechanism they resented, but rather what it symbolized. Today, the jury stands as an emblem of rationalism and modernity. That is not how the medieval world saw it. After Henry II, English rule meant government by jury; in this atmosphere, the jury – whose membership tended to be highly selective – represented not freedom, equality, or modernity, but royal overreach. Standing mute was one among a number of weapons belonging to the peasantry’s arsenal to protest the growing power of the king, whose authority expanded at the expense of his subjects’ rights. Passive noncooperation typified peasant strategies of resistance, which included also failure to perform labor services, ignoring summons to appear for jury duty, and rent strikes, as well as listening to outlaw tales, applauding the sermons of rebellious priests, and venerating at the shrines of political martyrs. These were the more usual weapons of popular resistance. Standing mute should take its place in this category.

A quarter-century has elapsed since the introduction of the Jury Law (Ley del Jurado) in Spain in 1995. This chapter describes trial by jury and its functioning over this period and also considers its chances for survival in the future. The chapter begins with the main features of the Spanish jury and includes changes to the Spanish judicial system after the introduction of jurors. This chapter also provides an overview of the current state of jury trials in Spain, including new statistics and judicial practices. Controversial and high-profile jury trials illustrate some of the strengths and weaknesses of the jury’s performance in Spain over the past 25 years.

As trial by jury is expanding across Georgia and covering more types of crimes, one question is gaining increasing importance – whether Georgians fully understand the reform, which to this point has expanded to seven cities and covers nearly 30 crimes in the Criminal Code. Without a well-informed public, progress of the reform will likely face serious challenges, such as citizens’ reluctance to participate, lengthy and costly selection procedures, and increased public support for the political opposition to the reform. Jury reform also remains a politically challenging process. Government support remains weak, exacerbated by skepticism from the courts. As a result, the reform is poorly funded and few, if any, efforts are made to educate the public. Furthermore, the jury receives little attention in the curriculum of Georgian law schools. The media is still not prepared for informed coverage of actual trials and is easily manipulated by opponents of the reform. This chapter addresses these and other problems faced by the Georgian jury and discusses risks that can hamper the development of the institution and discredit its value in the eyes of the public.