Judge Skinner's decision to divide the Woburn case into four separate parts has been criticized by some as unfairly altering the jury's decision-making process; however, dividing a complex trial into discrete units is both fair and rational. While it is true that separating a trial into discrete units may affect the ultimate decision rendered by a jury, the question that needs to be answered is whether the effect on the jury is positive or negative in terms of serving the overall goal of creating a fairer process of adjudication. The major arguments advanced by opponents of trial polyfurcation are: 1) that inter-related issues may be separated, 2) that evidence may be unfairly excluded, and 3) that artificial incentives may be created for the jury to dispose of the trial quickly. These arguments, though, fail to recognize the need to provide an organized structural basis for conducting a complex trial. Judges are often called upon to provide guidance to the jury. Dividing the trial into logical portions, like the instructions given by a judge to a jury at the end of trial, is simply a method of helping to assure that the jury understands the legal issues and standards involved.
The fear that inter-related issues will be separated and evidence will be unfairly excluded, stems from the belief that issues such as causation cannot be separated from other elements in a trial without inhibiting the jury from examining the case as a whole instead of as the sum of discrete parts. Dividing a trial in discrete portions, though, does not prevent the discussion of inter-related issues. Within any elemental portion of a case, the issues related to other portions of the case can also be discussed if they have some bearing on the issue at hand. This allows for balancing the need to discuss inter-related issues with the need to prevent emotional or inflammatory evidence from being used where it would have only a prejudicial effect. This balancing feature of trial polyfurcation is highly advantageous because it helps to assure that emotional or inflammatory evidence is not used to influence the jury's decision on matters where such testimony has no bearing on the issue at hand. Furthermore, it creates a type of order and logic which makes the case easier to administer, and more importantly, easier for the jury to understand and digest.
Some opponents of trial polyfurcation have argued that division of a trial into several mini-trials encourages the jury to dismiss the case early on because the jury becomes bored and does not wish to participate in later stages of the trial. While it is true that some jurors involved in long trials may be tempted to bring a sudden conclusion to the case, it is also equally true that most jurors wish to carefully examine the evidence and come to a fair decision based on the merits of the case. It is also worth noting that the court's time is more efficiently used if it can dispose of a case as early as possible if the case lacks an elemental requirement. The division of a trial into discrete units therefore encourages a more efficient use of the courts time. Trial polyfurcation also has the advantage of keeping the jury focused on the issue at hand. By separating discrete issues, juries are able to examine each issue in depth and are encouraged to devise a logical basis for their decision. All these advantages help to demonstrate why the polyfurcation of a trial can advance the goal of creating a fair and rational trial process.