Complex Litigation in the New Era of the iJury
Complex litigation involves a large case that is filed against a company, and it involves longer litigations. The complex litigation started in the mid-twentieth. The first cases were reported with the introduction of federal rules of joinder back in 1938 which allowed multiple claims presented by multiple parties to be held by a single jury. The subject matter of the litigation also became more complicated. There is increased use of technology where many lawsuits use the latest technology as the base for storing information. Juries also have increased responsibilities where they hear even explosion of patent litigation which is also complex. The subjects’ matters that are used in the current litigation are hard to understand which require the juries or patents to know the same. The juries in the current complex litigation are made of few individuals where one jury can handle multiple claims.
Some complex lawsuits at issue in the current jury have many pages compared to the lawsuits that were filed initially. They are also expensive where the cost each of the party more than $ 1 million. This is because the scope of evidence for each litigation is lengthened which increase the cost of any lawsuit issue. The language used in these lawsuits is also complex which require all jury members to understand the complex subject matter.
I believe that the current jury system is sufficient to handle the complex issues. This is because with the increased use of technology. The long pages of evidence can now be easily processed to get useful information that can be used in the trial. To preserve legitimate trials, courts have tried to use avoidance and accommodation of the jury. If the current jury system can apply these techniques together with technology in courtrooms, it will be easy for the jury to expedite proceedings, maintain the attention of jurors, increase their understanding as well as to prevent them from getting bored. This will give them patiently to handle complex issues that are presented to them.
I think the current system should be retained but on condition, if the attorneys will make use of technology for presenting information. This will ensure that information is presented effectively. If the jurors are also willing to forego momentary gratification of every status and tweet while listening to the litigant, the system should be retained because there will be successful litigations despite the complexity. Despite the fact that some people consider the jury doomed due to the long hours spent on technology, changing it will not translate to a better judicial system. This is because there is increased use of technology that can interfere with their effectiveness. Cooperation between the educators, society, academy bench and bar is required to ensure a successful current system rather than changing it. Use of technology will be the only way to ensure the success of the current system. Adopting an alternative system may not mean the success of jury system so the current system should remain.
With the variety of technology forms available for presentation today, lawyers should be able to use any technology the desire in the courtroom. This is because the use of technology is cost-effective because there is reduced paperwork. This is because the evidence that was initially presented in many pages can easily be summarized and processed in useful information which will save on cost. Use of technology also saves time because it is easy to retrieve information and share with other jurors which will cut the time frames by 50%. Use of technology creates a flexible schedule for lawyers where they can take away some documents that are proved irrelevant for the case. The lawyers can also use technology to call witnesses by videoconferencing which reduced on time that the witness could have used to get to the courtroom. Technology has proved to make complex issues presented in the courtroom easier because lawyers have great control of the information presented in the courtroom. This is where they can separate the less important evidence from the important one which will make it easy for them to solve the issues. This justifies that lawyers should be allowed to use the technology they desire in the courtroom for their convenience.
There should be a limit of use if technology in the courtroom. This is because some jurors tweet and update status when dealing with a litigant which can be annoying and time-consuming. This means that there should be limits of how technology is used in the courtroom to avoid disrupting proceedings of a case. Technology should only be used for convenience of the court proceedings but not for personal satisfaction as that can lead to ineffective judgment. Technology should only be used for presentations by lawyers which saves on time and money that could have been spent sorting the evidence. Layers should also avoid the use of technology during case proceedings if it is not necessary to save on time.