IT IS ARGUED THAT, LARGELY DUE TO POOR COMMUNICATION, JURORS OFTEN FIND IMPROPER FACTS, MISAPPLY THE LAW, AND FAIL TO UNDERSTAND LEGAL PROCEDURE AND LANGUAGE. IF JURORS WERE ALLOWED TO ASK QUESTIONS, THESE COMMUNICATION PROBLEMS COULD BE ELIMINATED AND THE JURY'S PERFORMANCE GREATLY IMPROVED. ALLOWING QUESTIONING BY THE JURY WOULD NEITHER RADICALLY ALTER TRADITIONAL TRIAL PROCEDURE NOR DESTROY THE ADVERSARY NATURE OF THE TRIAL. ATTORNEYS ARE RESPONSBILE FOR PRESENTING EVIDENCE, BUT DO NOT POSSESS EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER A TRIAL; THE JUDGE HAS THE INHERENT RIGHT TO QUESTION WITNESSES. BECAUSE BOTH JUDGE AND JURY ARE CHARGED WITH FINDING THE TRUTH AND REACHING A JUST DECISION, JURY QUESTIONING, LIKE JUDGE INTERROGATION, SHOULD BE ALLOWED. THE CREATIVE USE OF PROCEDURAL TECHNIQUES FOR ELICITING QUESTIONS FROM JURORS CAN MINIMIZE PROBLEMS THAT WOULD ARISE IF JURORS WERE ALLOWED TO ASK QUESTIONS. SPECIFIC PROCEDURES ARE SUGGESTED. (LKM)