The benefits and disadvantages of three research methods are examined: statistical analysis of jury verdicts, posttrial jury interviews, and shadow jury studies. An overview of previous jury research concludes that jurors' demographic characteristics, personality traits, and general attitudes have weak and unreliable effects on verdicts. The strength of the evidence presented at trial appears to be the most important determinant of the jury's verdict. While it is known that jurors can make mistakes, there is no solid evidence that they are less competent than judges as factfinders. In contrast to criminal juries, analysis of the civil jury's tasks reveals many topics neglected by research. An outline of directions for future research focuses on how jurors make inferences about liability, how they determine civil damage awards, and how they cope with highly complex litigation. Tables and over 100 references.