Allowing jurors to question witnesses is at the forefront of the jury reform movement, yet the idea is not new. Juror questioning has been reported in American courts since the late 1800's. Despite its roots, however, juror questioning is not widespread. Several courts are experimenting with juror questioning and are finding good reasons to allow it. Juror questioning has many advantages. Overall, it advances the interests of justice and the search for truth by enhancing the fact-finding and decision-making functions of jurors. Jurors become active rather than passive participants, empowering jurors with the freedom to ask questions increases their attentiveness and interest and deepens their concentration on the presentation of evidence and testimony, and asking questions helps jurors understand and remember facts and issues. As a result, jurors make better decisions and their questions alleviate lingering doubts and uncertainties about the testimony provided. In addition, juror questioning helps lawyers by revealing important issues or evidence they do not understand and alerts lawyers that some factual issues may need clarification or more extensive development. On the other hand, critics of juror questioning, generally criminal and civil defense attorneys, warn of disadvantages. They contend juror questioning transforms jurors from neutral arbiters into partial and active adversaries; juror questions may be prejudicial, irrelevant, speculative, argumentative, or otherwise inadmissible; juror questioning may subtly alter the traditional relationships among jurors, witnesses, and lawyers; allowing juror questioning may precipitate premature evaluation of the evidence by jurors; and juror questioning lengthens the trial and disrupts its flow. Nonetheless, of Federal and State appellate courts that have addressed the issue of juror questioning, the overwhelming majority accept juror questioning and leave the issue to the discretion of the trial court. The potential disadvantages of juror questioning dictate that procedural safeguards be implemented, and specific procedures courts should follow to eliminate or minimize these disadvantages are noted. 17 notes