Legal Definitions - advisory jury

An advisory jury is a group of citizens empaneled to hear evidence and render a verdict, but whose findings are not binding on the judge. The judge considers the advisory verdict as a recommendation when making their final decision, particularly in cases where there is no right to a jury trial.

An advisory jury is a group of citizens impaneled by a judge, typically in cases where there is no constitutional or statutory right to a jury trial (such as in many equity cases or administrative law matters). Unlike a regular jury, whose verdict is binding on the court, the findings of an advisory jury are not binding. Instead, the judge considers the advisory jury's findings and recommendations as guidance or assistance in making their own final decision on the facts of the case.

Judges often use advisory juries in complex cases involving highly technical or factual disputes, believing that the collective wisdom of a lay jury can help clarify intricate issues, even if the ultimate legal decision rests solely with the judge.

• Example 1: Complex Business Contract Dispute

  Imagine a lawsuit where a software development company is suing a client for breach of contract, not for money damages, but to compel the client to complete the purchase of a highly customized software system (a remedy known as specific performance, which is an equitable remedy decided by a judge). The client argues the software is defective and unusable. The judge, facing a mountain of technical evidence and expert testimony about software functionality, coding standards, and industry practices, might decide to impanel an advisory jury. This jury would listen to all the evidence and provide findings on whether the software met the contract specifications. The judge would then consider these findings, along with all other evidence, when making the final decision on whether to order specific performance, but would not be legally obligated to follow the jury's conclusions.

• Example 2: Environmental Regulation Challenge

  Consider a case where a group of environmental activists is seeking a court order (an injunction, another equitable remedy) to stop a new industrial plant from operating, claiming its emissions will cause irreparable harm to a local ecosystem. The plant owners dispute the scientific models and data presented by the activists. The judge, tasked with weighing complex scientific evidence regarding air quality, ecological impact, and potential health risks, could utilize an advisory jury. The jury would hear from various scientific experts, review technical reports, and then offer factual findings on the likelihood and severity of environmental harm. The judge would then use these findings as a helpful perspective when deciding whether to grant the injunction, but the ultimate legal and factual determination would remain the judge's responsibility.