What type of trial’s verdict acts only as a guideline for negotiating a resolution?

A summary jury trial (SJT) is a unique form of alternative dispute resolution that presents a case to a jury, which then delivers a non-binding verdict. This verdict serves primarily as a guideline for the parties involved to facilitate negotiations toward a resolution. The intent of an SJT is to allow both parties to gauge how a jury might view the case, helping them to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of their positions, and to encourage settlement discussions based on the jury’s feedback.

In contrast, arbitration trials typically result in binding decisions that are legally enforceable, meaning the parties must adhere to the outcome without the opportunity to negotiate further. Standard civil trials involve formal proceedings and result in a binding verdict, with no option to negotiate based on the verdict. Mini-trials may allow for negotiations as well, but they are often more structured and can still lead to a definitive conclusion rather than merely serving as a guideline. Thus, the distinguishing feature of the SJT is its focus on providing a non-binding verdict that can aid in settlement negotiations, making it the correct answer.