Recently Posted on SSRN (and forthcoming in the William & Mary Law Review):
My tentative conclusion is that jurors are likely superior to voters in terms of both acquiring knowledge and utilizing it in a rational way. But ignorance and irrationality do sometimes compromise jury decision-making, especially in complex cases. They are even more likely to bedevil efforts to use jury-like institutions to make broad policy decisions, as opposed to merely decide discrete cases.
Part I summarizes the problem of political ignorance in the case of voters and explains some theoretical reasons why we would expect jurors to acquire greater relevant knowledge than voters do, and to use it more wisely. Part II discusses the relevant empirical evidence on jury knowledge and rationality. Much of that evidence shows juries performing fairly well. But it also suggests that ignorance and bias undermine the quality of jury decisions in unusually complex cases, such as ones involving scientific evidence, punitive damages, and complicated jury instructions. Overall, juries perform better than voters in large part because of the ways in which trials differ from elections. Unlike voters, jurors usually cast votes that have a high probability of making a difference, and decide only a narrow specific case rather than a broad set of policy issues. They are also required to listen to extensive evidence from both sides before making a decision.
Finally, Part III expresses skepticism about the possibility of using jury-like mechanisms to help decide broad policy questions. Such proposals break down some of the key differences between jury service and voting that make the former function more effectively than the latter.