Trying to blindfold the jury belies the realities of trying a case under modern procedure. Good lawyers develop a theory of the case and pick a few themes they hope will resonate with the jury. They try to advance their theory at every opportunity, beginning with the pleadings, through opening statement and voir dire, all during the trial itself, and concluding with the charge and final summation. The whole aim of this exercise is to appeal to the conscious and subconscious mind of the jury. Jurors would not be human if they did not give some thought to the effect of their answers.
Jurors bring their own sense of right and wrong to the task.
However, a rule intended to keep jurors from seeking their own vision of justice will not work, even if it were desirable. The criminal courts trust jurors to know the effect of their answers in death penalty cases, society's most critical legal determination. It is time to reposit similar responsibility to jurors of civil cases, because we either trust them or we do not. Furthermore, I would not only tell the jury about the fifty-one percent rule and the statutory trebling of damages, but I would also eliminate the collateral source rule. In short, it is time to take the blinders off in order to bring clarity and honesty to our search for the truth.