Krystia Reed

So quasi-experimental studies means that we didn't randomly assign people to be part of a virtual jury versus an in-person jury.

We just were split at COVID.

So basically, if they participated before COVID happened, they were part of the in-person juries.

And if they participated after, they were part of the virtual juries.

So we didn't have a lot of control over that element.

So there might be other reasons for those differences other than the fact that they were participating online versus in-person.

Because COVID changed the dynamic of how things happen.

We tried to keep it as similar as possible.

So we recruited people in the same way in both mediums.

And we tried to have control over that.

And we did tech checks and other things.

But there are other things that might be explaining our results because it was quasi-experimental and we didn't have full control over that design.

I think it might be a good idea at least to look into, and there is some literature from the general, some courts had been doing some civil juries online during the pandemic, and a lot of the judges were saying that they were working pretty well.

And so if people are being required to be there and they're taking it seriously, it seems like it might increase access to justice.

So there are elements in small rural communities and stuff where people might have a hard time getting to the courthouse.

And so it might make that easier for people to serve as juries and really represent a jury of your peers.

Right.

But once it comes to like longer deliberations.

So this was, like I said, a few hours in a day.

And if you're talking about three or four days or longer, maybe those might be more problematic.