Define: Advisory Jury

A jury that makes recommendations to a judge but does not render final judgment.

An advisory jury is a group of individuals selected to provide a non-binding opinion or recommendation on a legal matter. Unlike a regular jury, an advisory jury does not have the power to render a verdict or make a final decision in a case. Instead, their role is to assist the judge or decision-maker by offering their perspective on the issues at hand.

The use of an advisory jury is at the discretion of the court or the parties involved in a legal dispute. It is often employed in complex or high-profile cases where the judge or decision-maker may benefit from additional input before making a final ruling. The advisory jury is typically composed of a smaller number of jurors compared to a regular jury, and their selection process may vary depending on the jurisdiction.

While the opinion of an advisory jury is not legally binding, it can carry significant weight in influencing the final decision. The judge or decision-maker may consider the advisory jury’s findings, reasoning, and recommendations when making their ruling. However, they are not obligated to follow the advisory jury’s opinion and may reach a different conclusion based on their own analysis of the law and evidence presented.

In summary, an advisory jury is a group of individuals who provide a non-binding opinion or recommendation to assist the judge or decision-maker in a legal matter. Their role is advisory in nature, and their opinion may be considered but is not legally binding.

In the US, advisory juries are authorised by Rule 39(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). This provision states that in all actions where the plaintiff does not have the right to a jury trial, the court may authorise an advisory jury if a party requests it or the judge concludes independently that it is appropriate. The “verdict” the advisory jury renders is not binding on the judge. Advisory juries are typically used when the federal government is the sole defendant in a civil lawsuit and when the claims at issue are particularly sensitive. In addition, obscenity trials sometimes employ an advisory jury to determine whether the material in question is obscene based on community standards. Because the FRCP serves as the model for state rules of procedure, most states also authorise advisory juries.

The advisory jury originated in English courts of equity, in which the chancellor (the name for an equity court judge) heard cases without a jury but had discretion to appoint a jury to advise him. In modern law, a judge has great discretion in determining how much weight an advisory jury verdict will bear on a final judgement. Some judges adopt advisory jury findings unless they are clearly erroneous, while other judges consider the findings an additional piece of evidence to be weighed in deciding the case.

After the government siege of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, in 1993, an advisory jury was used in a lawsuit against the federal government filed by the survivors of the fire that ended the siege and relatives of those who died in the fire. The survivors’ wrongful death action asked for $675 million in damages. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act the survivors did not have a right to a jury trial, but the federal judge concluded that an advisory jury was needed. In July 2000, the jury ruled in favour of the federal government on all counts, and the judge endorsed these findings in a final judgement.

This site contains general legal information but does not constitute professional legal advice for your particular situation. Persuing this glossary does not create an attorney-client or legal adviser relationship. If you have specific questions, please consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.

This glossary post was last updated: 10th April, 2024.