Summary trials are an alternative dispute resolution that provides parties with an idea of how a real jury would decide a case. They are conducted in ordinary courtrooms with a strict one-day time limit and often a non-binding verdict. Summary trials are meant to help parties settle without going to trial, saving time and money. However, they are not a panacea for all ills in the civil justice system and have their drawbacks. Jurisdictions outside the US have different definitions of summary trials, but they are usually similar to the American system.
A summary trial is a form of alternative dispute resolution that began to garner interest and support in the United States in the late 20th century. It’s usually conducted like a normal trial, but has a couple of significant differences, like a strict one-day time limit and, often, a non-binding verdict. Summary trials take place in ordinary courtrooms, are presided over by judges, and host a jury selected from the pool of regular juries, who deliver a verdict at the conclusion of the trial. The other distinction that distinguishes summary trials is that they usually have no witnesses, only affidavits and arguments.
Parties to a lawsuit sometimes have unrealistic ideas about the strength of their cases and the likely outcomes of jury trials. They may work with focus groups and mock judging panels as they prepare their cases, but these are often not representative of the actual judging pool. Summary trials, therefore, are meant to give the parties an idea of how a real jury would decide a case. They are useful tools when there is no substantive disagreement on the facts in a case and the parties are only distant on the proposed resolution. Often ordered by the judge in cases where pre-trial negotiations have failed, they have been so successful in bringing about settlements that in many cases the parties themselves will ask the court for a summary trial.
The main point of a summary trial is to show the parties what a real jury is likely to decide and help them settle without going to trial. The financial savings from a pre-arrangement are substantial for all concerned. Neither party will bear the costs of eyewitnesses, expert witnesses or exhibition preparation. The parties also save days or even weeks of attorney fees for court time. Taxpayers also save considerably, because the costs of conducting the proceedings are considerable.
While they are a cheaper alternative to a full-blown trial, summary trials are neither cheap nor simple. The parties must agree on a number of issues, such as the format of the trial and how the exhibits will be presented to the jury. Affidavits, which include much of the information presented, must be carefully prepared. Lawyers need to be at the top of their games because they will have to argue their cases to the jury within strict time limits. The court must conduct the full-fledged trial as a trial proper, within the rules and guidelines agreed upon by the parties.
Juries in summary trials, usually made up of six jurors, are generally not told that their verdicts will not be binding. Each side usually prepares a binder for each juror on the jury, to save time lost in a regular trial when jurors flash back and forth. At the conclusion of the trial, jurors are encouraged to discuss their verdict with the parties.
While summary evidence can provide a great advantage to the system, they have their drawbacks. Some parties don’t want to reveal their arguments before a real trial, for example. Furthermore, one party could “frame” the other party by withholding critical evidence or arguments, only to later present them in a full trial. This is not a frequent occurrence, however.
Summary trials should not be seen as a panacea for all ills in the civil justice system, nor for all cases where there is agreement on the essential facts. Most judges will not approve summary evidence if there is no clear evidence that will result in significant cost savings. Therefore, even if there is significant disagreement between the parties on a proposed settlement of a dispute, if the trial appears to take only a day or two, a summary trial will likely not be conducted.
Jurisdictions outside the United States have different definitions of summary trials. In most cases, they are similar to the American system, but the results are usually binding. A summary trial without a jury is also often held, but affidavits of fact are presented to the judge, who will issue a judgment or order a full trial if the evidence presented is inadequate.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
