Abstract
Classic studies on judge-juror agreement have converged on the finding that judges and jurors agree on the outcomes in most cases (71-75%). This study extends these findings by comparing trial process evaluations of judges, jurors and litigants in actual civil trials. The results suggest that judges and juries largely overlap in their perceptions of trial process measures (e.g. case complexity). However, judicial and jury perceptions often differ from litigants' perceptions. The way in which different perspectives of the trial process predict satisfaction with the outcome is also explored. Litigant, but not judicial or jury, perceptions of the trial process were found to predict satisfaction. These results support past research concerning judge-juror agreement, but suggest there is less agreement between objective (i.e. judges and jurors) and subjective (i.e. litigants) perspectives of the trial process.