Jury Verdicts (Prof. Arthur Austin)

Guide to the Jury Study Documents of Arthur D. Austin

Biography of Arthur D. Austin (check archives boxes)

Arthur D. Austin, 1932-2018, obituary (Cleveland.com)

SCOPE AND CONTENTS

The collection consists of materials from Professor Austin's research on jury comprehension. The first, and most important, series is the jury research in the trials between the City of Cleveland and the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (CEI). While the trials were significant events during the 1970s and 1980s, the rivalry between the two electrical utilities dates back to the early 1900s.

The City sued CEI, its rival for municipal utilities, over violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Subsequently there were two trials. A scholar in the field of antitrust, Austin began attending the first trial sessions in 1980. While he recognized that the attorneys' arguments were well-organized and persuasively presented, he was also quite aware of the complexities involved in antitrust litigation. In addition to his interest in antitrust, he became interested in how juries might understand such complex litigation issues. Austin carefully followed both trials and later conducted extensive post-jury interviews to analyze jury comprehension.

His jury studies resulted in a
book, articles, and expert work around the country on jury studies.

Series information:

Series I: City of Cleveland v. the Cleveland Illuminating Co. (CEI): Litigation between the City of Cleveland and CEI resulted in two trials with very different results: the first jury voting 5-1 in favor of the City (i.e., a hung jury) while the second jury held in favor of CEI, giving Professor Austin "the unique chance to compare two juries who had different perceptions of the same evidence... it was also an opportunity to evaluate the impact of changes in trial tactics on jury comprehension." --preface,
Complex Litigation Confronts the Jury System: a Case Study.

Series II: New Mexico Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation Jury Survey: Professor Austin conducted a thorough jury study and produced a full report on jury comprehension in case (in re: New Mexico Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation, MDL 403) at the request of Jones, Gallegos, Snead, and Wertheim (Santa Fe, New Mexico) in preparation for the Firm's next trial of this case. The anticipated litigation was to be a unified trial - i.e., liability and damages would be tried together. The Firm expected that Austin's post first-trial juror interviews would provide insight into juror attitudes relevant to a damage verdict.

One of the highlights of this archive is found in this series and consists of four 5X7 notepads kept by one of the jurors during the trial. The notebooks contain comments on every phase of the trial and provide firsthand insights into a juror's perceptions.

Series III: Independent Study: Professional Football League Jury Research: Professor Austin had inquired whether Finley, Kumble (New York) had conducted post trial interviews of jurors in their antitrust litigation between the United States Football League and the National Football League. Finley & Kumble responded that although no post trial jury interviewing had been done, certain trial documents, namely the appendix to the Firm's memorandum in support of a new trial, included juror statements. This source material facilitated Professor Austin's ongoing research about jury comprehension.

Series IV: Liggett & Myers Jury Survey: Professor Austin conducted juror research in a North Carolina U.S. District Court case (Liggett Group Inc. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.) in preparation for similar upcoming litigation for Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue (Cleveland, Ohio). Although the final report is the property of Jones, Day, and not available, Series IV contains Austin's detailed research notes for the study.

Series V: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher: Litigation Retreat at LaCosta Resort: Professor Austin was asked to do a presentation at Dunn & Crutcher's (San Diego, Ca.) annual litigation retreat regarding the ability of juries to decipher complex trials. He also participated in a panel discussion with a few of the Firm's experienced senior trial lawyers, discussing both the function of the jury in complex litigation and the best means by which to present evidence to the jury in that context.

Statement of Arrangements

The collection consists of materials from Professor Austin's research on jury comprehension. The first, and most important, series is the jury research in the trials between the City of Cleveland and the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (CEI). While the trials were significant events during the 1970s and 1980s, the rivalry between the two electrical utilities dates back to the early 1900s.

The City sued CEI, its rival for municipal utilities, over violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Subsequently there were two trials. A scholar in the field of antitrust, Austin began attending the first trial sessions in 1980. While he recognized that the attorneys' arguments were well-organized and persuasively presented, he was also quite aware of the complexities involved in antitrust litigation. In addition to his interest in antitrust, he became interested in how juries might understand such complex litigation issues. Austin carefully followed both trials and later conducted extensive post-jury interviews to analyze jury comprehension.

His jury studies resulted in a book, articles, and expert work around the country on jury studies.

Series information:

Series I: City of Cleveland v. the Cleveland Illuminating Co. (CEI): Litigation between the City of Cleveland and CEI resulted in two trials with very different results: the first jury voting 5-1 in favor of the City (i.e., a hung jury) while the second jury held in favor of CEI, giving Professor Austin "the unique chance to compare two juries who had different perceptions of the same evidence... it was also an opportunity to evaluate the impact of changes in trial tactics on jury comprehension." --preface, Complex Litigation Confronts the Jury System: a Case Study.

Series II: New Mexico Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation Jury Survey: Professor Austin conducted a thorough jury study and produced a full report on jury comprehension in case (in re: New Mexico Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation, MDL 403) at the request of Jones, Gallegos, Snead, and Wertheim (Santa Fe, New Mexico) in preparation for the Firm's next trial of this case. The anticipated litigation was to be a unified trial - i.e., liability and damages would be tried together. The Firm expected that Austin's post first-trial juror interviews would provide insight into juror attitudes relevant to a damage verdict.

One of the highlights of this archive is found in this series and consists of four 5X7 notepads kept by one of the jurors during the trial. The notebooks contain comments on every phase of the trial and provide firsthand insights into a juror's perceptions.

Series III: Independent Study: Professional Football League Jury Research: Professor Austin had inquired whether Finley, Kumble (New York) had conducted post trial interviews of jurors in their antitrust litigation between the United States Football League and the National Football League. Finley & Kumble responded that although no post trial jury interviewing had been done, certain trial documents, namely the appendix to the Firm's memorandum in support of a new trial, included juror statements. This source material facilitated Professor Austin's ongoing research about jury comprehension.

Series IV: Liggett & Myers Jury Survey: Professor Austin conducted juror research in a North Carolina U.S. District Court case (Liggett Group Inc. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.) in preparation for similar upcoming litigation for Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue (Cleveland, Ohio). Although the final report is the property of Jones, Day, and not available, Series IV contains Austin's detailed research notes for the study.

Series V: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher: Litigation Retreat at LaCosta Resort: Professor Austin was asked to do a presentation at Dunn & Crutcher's (San Diego, Ca.) annual litigation retreat regarding the ability of juries to decipher complex trials. He also participated in a panel discussion with a few of the Firm's experienced senior trial lawyers, discussing both the function of the jury in complex litigation and the best means by which to present evidence to the jury in that context.