Post verdict interviews were conducted by jurors in the Newman v Johns-Manville case in which the 4 plaintiffs, all insulators or widows of insulators, alleged that they had asbestosis and sued the same 10 asbestos manufacturers for failure to warn of the health hazards. The jury had ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded them $3.9 million in compensatory damages and punitive damages of $4 million against 4 of the 10 defendants. The interview questions were designed to define the steps jurors used to arrive at their verdict and compute the awards. Interviews revealed that the jury had little difficulty reaching its decision because most had reached individual decisions prior to deliberations. But jurors had difficulty in three instances remembering and following the judge's instructions. They applied evidence incorrectly, awarded compensation for expenses they were not supposed to consider, and considered extra legal factors in determining liability and punitive awards. In determining compensatory and punitive damages, the jurors calculated and summed each component of the award then added a sum for legal fees. Two central issues are highlighted in the debate over jury performance: (1) is the process of jury deliberation or decisionmaking unpredictable, or (2) are there identifiable principles that may guide jury behavior. Tabular data, forms and 92 references.