What primarily distinguishes a summary jury trial (SJT) from a traditional trial?

A summary jury trial (SJT) is characterized primarily by its function as a tool to facilitate settlement negotiations rather than serving as a definitive resolution of the case. Unlike traditional trials, which aim to render a binding verdict that resolves the matter in question, an SJT provides a non-binding verdict after a condensed presentation of the evidence and arguments. This process allows the parties involved to gauge how a jury might respond to the case if it went to a full trial, ultimately encouraging parties to negotiate a settlement based on the jury's feedback.

The other options describe aspects that either do not apply to an SJT or are inherent to traditional trials. In a summary jury trial, the verdict is not binding, attorneys are typically present, and a jury is indeed selected but the emphasis is on guiding negotiations rather than strictly adhering to formal legal resolutions. This distinction highlights the SJT's unique role in the legal landscape as a means of fostering resolution through insight rather than commitment.