During my experimental period of introduction of settlement conferences into Arizona, I developed other avenues to enhance arriving at a full agreement. When a settlement case was deadlocked, I utilized advisory summary juries enabling the attorneys to discuss their positions with the jurors to obtain insight into the risk potential and then assess the feasibility of settlement. Each side had 45 minutes to present their most critical facts to the four person jury. Later, we added the Binding Summary Jury Trials with a high/low and Interactive Jury Trials, still with an expedited time frame of one-two days. In the latter situation, the jurors would hear the agreed upon evidence in a condensed manner, then deliberate, and when they were sufficiently grounded in the case and its issues, return to the Court for further discussion and analysis of the issues deemed critical with the attorneys. Despite the comparative shortness of the trial, attorneys opined that they had never tried a case so completely with the knowledge that the jurors had fully considered all issues. Jurors' post hearing letters applauded the efficiency and effectiveness of the procedures and were pleased to have provided the service to the Court.