This article explores the empirical research on juror questioning, focusing on the difference between judicial and juror questioning. The first section traces the historical development of the American jury system, emphasizing its evolution from an active to a passive form of courtroom participation. Legal aspects of the judge and the jury questioning witnesses are examined, and the procedural process of allowing jurors to question during a trial are outlined. Following a review of arguments in favor of jurors questioning witnesses, the author presents an analysis revolving around the ineffectiveness of remedial instructions, problems arising from either failing to object or objecting to juror questions, potential abuse of the system, and adverse effects on trial efficiency. Other issues include problems with discouraging or halting juror questions midway through trial, juror questioning in complex litigation, and threats to juror impartiality. The author concludes that, beyond the simple clarification of a definition or piece of testimony, the practice of juror questioning risks prejudicing the jury and unreasonably delaying the trial. 233 notes