STRUCTURE AND RELATIONSHIP IN THE JURISPRUDENCE OF JURIES - COMPARINGTHE CAPITAL SENTENCING AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES DOCTRINES

Historically, the American legal system has accorded juries wide discr etion to impose sentences in the criminal context and to award damages in civil litigation. These jury decisions were all but unreviewable a t the appellate level as juries were regarded as representing the citi zens' determination of a just and proper resolution of a case, and the courts were reluctant to disturb its conclusions. Recent years, howev er, have seen a systematic erosion of jury authority as the courts now review many jury decisions under the Due Process Clauses of the Const itution. The Supreme Court first imposed constraints on the jury in th e criminal context, particularly in death penalty cases. Then in 1996, in BMW v. Gore, the Court for the first time struck down a jury's civ il damages award as aviolation of due process rights. This new oversig ht of jury authority represents a major shift in the balance of powers among the institutions responsible for making, enforcing, and interpr eting the law. Professor Brown begins by exploring the history of the structural role of the jury as it relates to other institutions such a s the legislature and the judiciary. The author then describes and ana lyzes the changing role of the jury, observing that this change reflec ts modern ideas of deliberative decision-making among the various gove rnmental institutions as explained by legal process theory. The author illustrates this evolving role of the jury by exploring the Court's j urisprudence first in the capital sentencing context and then in the a rea of punitive damages. He describes a jury being transformed from a nearly autonomous body with great authority to determine facts and law to an institution currently operating at least formally under constra ints from judges and legislatures. Finally, the author analyzes this c hanged role and concludes that the new procedural regime into which th e jury has been integrated may actually improve the jury's competency.