Reconsider Jury Duty
Walter Olson blogs at Cato about why people detest jury duty ("Hint: It's Compulsory"), linking to his (much) earlier reason piece:
When they move from room to room, they go as a group, escorted by men in uniform," writes Stephen Adler of his subjects. "They are supposed to follow directions, ask no questions, make no demands." In cases where their captivity is prolonged, some suffer serious financial losses, while others are unable to nurse an ailing spouse or fly to a loved one's deathbed. "It was the closest I've ever been to being in jail," one woman said.Such can be the experience of those called to serve on that reputedly all-powerful body, the jury. For many of us, no doubt, the potential excitement of acting a part in a real courtroom drama outweighs any indignation at the compulsory aspect of the adventure. Still, jury duty helps point up one of our legal system's less endearing features: its penchant for casually inflicting the kind of harms for which it would demand the most stringent punishment were they to be inflicted by anyone else.
Take the case of lost wages. Often, these days, a disgruntled applicant will drag an employer to court claiming to have been wrongfully turned down for a job. If it approves of his case, our legal system is eager to guarantee him the most liberal measure of compensation. Naturally, he'll sue for full back salary since the date at which he should have joined the payroll--without, of course, having to go back and perform any of the actual work in question. Depending on the law involved, he may also demand the cash value of fringe benefits, overtime and lost promotions, training, damages for emotional disturbance, and on and on. Whole days and weeks may be spent at trial squabbling over these entitlements.
But what about the jurors conscripted to hear his case? What can they expect as compensation for their lost chance to earn a living? Some purely arbitrary, token sum, such as a flat $15 a day, no matter what their actual pay would have been on the outside. Otherwise, lawyers will tell you, people will seize on exaggerated notions of the value of their time, and courts are too busy to argue about that kind of thing.
Or consider the issue of privacy. In a well-known California decision, a court ruled that a discount store unlawfully invaded the privacy of applicants for security guard jobs by asking them to fill out an off-the-shelf psychological questionnaire, even though 1) mental stability might seem to be a valuable trait in guards, who are apt to use physical force for which their employer is legally liable; 2) the store was not going to base its hiring decision on any one answer, nor release the results; and 3) no one had to apply for the guard jobs who didn't want to.
Contrast that with the treatment of Dianna Brandborg, the 48-year-old office manager from near Dallas who got drafted as a prospective juror last year. Like many jurors, she was handed a questionnaire curtly demanding information about her religion, political views, income, membership in controversial organizations, reading and TV viewing preferences, what make of car she owned, and so forth. Brandborg has lived with her husband for 20 years in the town of Shady Shores, and describes herself as "probably as law-abiding a person as there ever was. I've never even gotten a traffic ticket." But she found the questions intrusive and declined to answer some of them, asking the judge for a chance to argue that these matters were irrelevant to her ability to serve as an impartial juror. Instead, he summarily found her in contempt of court and sentenced her to three days in jail and a $200 fine, a ruling upheld on appeal. "We can't let jurors decide what questions they will ask and won't ask," a local law professor explained.
Should we have professional jurors, paid real wages? If that's not the solution, what is? Who should pay the cost of juries? (If I had to take months off from writing, I would lose my column and have to live on my savings in the meantime.)
No, we should not have paid professional juries. Taking time off of work for jury duty is just one price you pay for living in our republic. I think it's important that every citizen at least have the potential to be called.
momof4 at March 3, 2012 11:06 AM
I agree w/MO4. Not only is it important for every citizen to have the potential to be called, it's also important for every citizen to be aware of how the judicial system works, contrary to what lawyers would have us believe. Besides, being a professional juror would, by the very description of the job, be stressful on a regular basis, not just about one particular aspect of the job. Then there would be the safety issue - would professional jurors be afforded some kind of protection? What if a convicted criminal get out of prison and go gunning for those who put him there? Nah, there's too many variables. No professional jurors. Being a juror consultant, on the other hand, might be lucrative, professionally speaking. When's the last time you saw "Runaway Jury"?
Flynne at March 3, 2012 11:35 AM
How timely this topic is. I have to call the court tomorrow evening to see if I need to report on Monday. I was looking forward to jury duty until a co-worker told me of her experience.
The defendant had a long criminal history and was caught with a box cutter trying to return stolen merchandise with the alarm attachment cut off the merchandise.
My co-worker was part of a mixed race jury and was assumed racist because she didn't want to let the guy off with just a slap on the wrist probation.
Most jurists just weren't interested in justice, They just wanted to go home.
Needless to say, my co-worker hopes to never serve again.
Goo at March 3, 2012 11:45 AM
I think a professional jury system is a good solution. Having worked in the court, the number of people who actually understand the law and all the factors of the case as slim. I would not want to be judged by those called my 'peers'. In theory it should be great, but since the minimum level of education is dropping, I think the system needs to be revised.
NikkiG at March 3, 2012 11:48 AM
And also with shows like CSI, friends that are prosecutors have lost cases just because it didnt wrap up nicely like it does on the show. 99% of criminal cases are decided by circumstantial evidence, not an abundance of smoking guns.
NikkiG at March 3, 2012 11:52 AM
Yeah, jury duty sucks. It's time consuming, they get in your business, and it doesn't pay for shit.
I've only been on one jury, and in that instance, the intrusive questions were there because they were relevant to the case, not because some evil entity was trying to get information on me. Hell, even before computers I figured if someone wanted info on me they could get it, so there was no point worrying about it.
The pay is crap because they don't want people to serve on juries for the sake of money. My husband suggested minimum wage, multiplied by the amount of hours spent. Of course, for some folks that would be great, for some it would be insulting. I don't think there's a good decision for this question. I think it falls under the category of Suck It Up.
As for the amount of time consumed, well, that's up to the jury, isn't it? You have to look at all the evidence, and then everybody gets to argue about it. And they will. So I guess you'd have to sue a fellow jurist for lost time or money.
Like I said, I've only been on one jury, about a minor case involving a speeding ticket. Yep, a lousy speeding ticket. But the defendant was a lawyer from out of state, and he wanted to argue his case in front of a jury.
No big deal, but I was fascinated by the process (except I really, really wish I had brought a book). I learned that even in a case like this you become hyper-aware that you are in the position of making a decision that will affect a total stranger. It's a unique feeling. You don't take it lightly. And all the other jurors felt it,too.
I think we were all pretty much in agreement, but we still had to discuss all the points that had been brought up before we passed judgment.
I have only been called once since then, and that case was settled out of court, but I would serve again in a heartbeat. And I wouldn't forget to bring a book this time.
Pricklypear at March 3, 2012 12:18 PM
No. The problem with a "professional jury" is that we end up with justice by selected elites. Who determines the qualifications, etc.
Far better to have a system that is a potential inconvenience to individuals, regardless of the number of Florida results we get.
brian at March 3, 2012 12:19 PM
A professional juror would be too concerned about keeping their job. What if they ruled against the state/US? Could they loose their job? How would performance be rated? What would the qualifications be?
I do think 15 bucks is crappy compensation. That barely covers the cost of parking. If you're lucky, you have enough left over to hit the vending machine. I think compensation should go up significantly for anything over a couple days.
ZombieApocalypseKitten at March 3, 2012 12:23 PM
On one hand, I think having professional juries would be a great solution. Here's why, IMHO. Private citizens summoned for jury duty aren't compensated enough. Many take a substantial pay cut to serve. They are shut off from the rest of the world and must give up certain liberties while they are serving. Not to mention they are forced to sacrifice time away from their jobs, families, etc, since showing up for jury duty is mandatory. Like Amy stated, if she had to spend months serving on a jury, she would lose her column which is her livelihood and her means for making a living.
On the other hand, I would have to wonder how individuals *could* serve as professional jurors. How would it work? As far as I know, those serving on juries can't watch the news, read newspapers, or go online because they may be swayed by anything they read about the case on which they are serving. If one is a professional juror, they would pretty much have to live in a hole as long as that is their profession.
Stacie S at March 3, 2012 12:31 PM
I've never made it past voir dire. It seems that prosecutors don't want prior Libertarian Party officials, vocal advocates of jury nullification, or Mensa members on juries. And defense attorneys seem to have similar attitudes about unashamed retired military.
RRRoark at March 3, 2012 12:47 PM
I have to add one more comment. I do think corruption would be more prevalent in professional juries. I myself have never served on jury duty. I would not be against it if I was called to serve as it is my duty as an American citizen to do so. However, concerns of losing my house, my job, etc due to serving for a long trial are valid concerns of mine.
Stacie S. at March 3, 2012 1:16 PM
I have no problems with leaving questions on a survey blank.
John Galt at March 3, 2012 3:26 PM
Last time my husband was called, he assumed he would get off because no lawyer wants a scientist. But this is Boulder County and not only was he one of three scientists on the jury, he wasn't even the only astrophysicist.
I'm 40 and I've been called in once in my life. I was not randomly selected for the jury pool and after an hour and a half I went home.
Astra at March 3, 2012 3:56 PM
I've served on two juries so far.
Both times, the experience was quite .... interesting.
One time, I had a chance to talk with someone who had served on dozens of juries, and who had been tapped as part of a committee to propose improvements for jury duty. One of the suggestions the group came up with was that at the beginning of a case, the jury would be given an estimate of how long the trial was expected to take.
They would be paid minimum wage for that many hours. If the case went over the expected time, the jurors would be paid time and a half, and that would come out of the pockets of whichever side the judge deemed responsible for the delay.
For some reason, the lawyers didn't like that last bit.
Karl at March 3, 2012 4:38 PM
I've been selected to call in for jury duty once.
As for professional juries -- I don't agree.
I think that jury pay should be half the state's minimum wage per hour.
I would be willing to serve on a jury, but have some caveats: If it was a sequestered jury -- I couldn't do it. I am the only person available to look after my cat. My position at work is one deep, and it would cause hardship for them as well. I could work my real job after hours, but would need internet access.
The Casey Anthony trial went that way because the prosecutors went for a deliberate homicide verdicts. If the jury had been given an option of a manslaughter verdict of some kind, they would have probably convicted in a heartbeat.
Jim P. at March 3, 2012 4:40 PM
Learn your rights as a juror at fija.org . Assert them when called in and questioned. Chances are you will never lose a lot of work or personal time, because you'll never be empaneled as a juror.
cpabroker at March 3, 2012 4:53 PM
PricklyPear: "Yep, a lousy speeding ticket. But the defendant was a lawyer from out of state, and he wanted to argue his case in front of a jury."
Thats his right via the 7th ammendment. Though the gov and supreme court have done a good job of gutting it over the past 200 years. Most traffic courts are a joke from everything I hear.
I've served on a county grand jury, which had a 2 week service period. They gave traveling expenses if I remember right and you had free parking at the courthouse. What I learned in that time was that you can indeed "get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich".
I agree with Roark, if you want to get out of jury duty, its probably best to mention jury nullifcation at some point. Try it in an open court room with other prospective jurors. :)
OT, anyone else see the TSA idiocy of the day? They forced a woman in Hawaii to demonstrate her breast pump really worked.
Sio at March 3, 2012 4:57 PM
You know that very, very, very few cases even run more than 1 day, much less have sequestered juries, right? I'm betting it's on the order of .0001%. No reason to overhaul the system.
I've been called twice and never had to report. I'd rather like to. I think that fact is on a list somewhere, and so I never will.
momof4 at March 3, 2012 5:11 PM
I've been called twice and have been on a jury both times. It wasn't terrible. Tedious, sure, but there are worse things in life than being bored.
My husband was recently called and was a bit of a drama queen about it until he realized that:
1) He had to go in only once. He was able to call in the other days, and they never asked him to come back.
2) The system is really cool about allowing for exceptional circumstances. We were traveling over the holidays when they called him the first time, and all he had to do was show proof of the ticket he bought. Had he been selected for a trial, he would have been able to get out of it by proving that it would have been an enormous financial liability for us and his company.
Jury duty gets a bad rap, but it's a civil duty. There are very few things we are obligated to do considering all the perks of living in this country.
MonicaP at March 3, 2012 5:51 PM
I don't see what having a professional jury solves. If the system can afford to pay professional jurors, then it can afford to pay citizen jurors. And the jury is the one and only part of the legal system that hasn't been captured by the Big Law machine.
There are a bunch of things that could be done to make jury duty less onerous. For the intrusive questioning, that's all driven by the fact that in every trial, at least one of the two sides has a motivation to empanel a jury that will not act rationally, because they know that a rational jury will rule against them. So they look for jurors who can be easily manipulated, and doing that is where all the intrusive questioning. How to fix it: Limit questioning to that necessary to ascertain whether the potential juror has a relationship to any of the principals in the trial. Give each side one or two preemptive strikes, but after that, the only grounds for dismissal is having a connection to the case. Other than that, you get who you get. No going through hundreds of jurors to find the "perfect" ones. There is no Constitutional right to a jury that you can manipulate.
Judges need to get serious about trial delaying tactics. There is little reason why any trial should ever take more than a few days. Stalling tactics that make trials go on for months are one reason people fear jury duty. True, this doesn't happen with most trials, but it only takes one to ruin the lives of 12 people.
The system is going to have to stop being so damn precious about "outside influences". What with communications technology these days, there is no way to cut off jurors from outside information, unless you imprison them and permit no contact with anyone or anything. Let jurors go home at night, or during recesses. Judges can question jurors before resuming if they have doubts about what a juror may be thinking due to having been exposed to something in the media. Sequestration doesn't work anymore; it cuts off jurors from their livelihood and from their dependents, and doing it properly would drive them insane.
Jurors should be paid decently. Most jurisdictions have rates that were established before WWII. For civil suits, paying the jurors should be part of a loser-pays reform.
Finally, 12 people on a jury is overkill. Florida tries nearly everything with juries of six, and they don't seem to have any problems with that.
Cousin Dave at March 3, 2012 8:35 PM
They were. They didn't find her guilty on that either. The words of the jurors that were interviewed were "they never proved how the baby died."
The problem with juries is sometimes you get 12 idiots. And in Florida, that's a virtual certainty. There's a reason that Fark has a "Florida" category.
brian at March 3, 2012 8:43 PM
You're probably right in the bulk of cases (the Casey Anthony trial comes to mind - perhaps this is part of the reason the jury threw it?).
The only time I can see sequestering the jury is if there is a real possibility of jury tampering.
brian at March 3, 2012 8:45 PM
I think the system should favor the unemployed (particularly those receiving unemployment compensation) getting chosen for jury duty.
Cat at March 3, 2012 8:47 PM
You would need to have term limits (2 years?) on professional jurors. Otherwise, defendants are no longer being tried by their "peers" as was intended.
Conan the Grammarian at March 3, 2012 9:18 PM
I've never been called and have no particular knowledge in this area, but don't they normally ask you whether you'd have some particularly extreme hardship associated with serving, such as maintaining a newspaper column?
I don't think they want anyone that'll be too disgruntled. I may be too naive, but I think that'd get you out of it.
whistleDick at March 3, 2012 10:40 PM
Just a couple of points about jury duty:
1 - a "professional" jury, isn't that like saying we want a group of judges to decide? No, I would not want that, they would have too much to prove to keep their jobs - kinda like judges do now.(especially if they are elected judges)
2 - A jury composed of "ordinary" folks has its pluses and minuses; on the plus side you get some common-sense folks who don't give a rat's a&& about want the law says they know right from wrong; but, that is also the minus, you get some jurors who are just plain idiots. For this I would think a criminal case jury should be like many states' civil cases, it does not have to be ALL jurors agreeing to a guilty verdict. Some states, in civil cases, allow for 8 jurors but you only need six guilty votes. This allows for the lone nut job to not throw a monkey wrench into the whole thing.
3 - No one is "paid" for jury duty. One is "reimbursed" for expenses. Now that $15/day is pretty good compared to my state in which it is only $5/day which doesn't even pay for lunch nor gas. So, yea, a better reimbursement is in order. (say! we could take the extra money out of judges' salaries, couldn't we? Yea, when hell freezes over.)
Lastly, one's jury duty experience is based, like so many other things, upon those you interact with. I have served Grand Jury twice. The first time was not fun as we, the jurors, were treated like we were the criminals, or at best, like we were an annoyance for the Judge and prosecutor. Without getting into details, so many of us wanted to tell the judge and the prosecutor where they could stick their system. The second time was so much better as we were treated with respect as if they valued our input - same county, same system, yet two very different experiences because of the folks running the show.
Charles at March 3, 2012 10:45 PM
Call me crazy, but I actually like Jury Duty. Well, aside from having to get up a lot earlier then I'm used to. However, it's a change of pace, an excuse to take the trolley, and usually I get excused part way through the day and take the rest of the day off. I even got on a murder trial jury over 10 years ago and found the experience to be pretty interesting overall. My biggest gripe about the whole thing was how much time was wasted vs actually spent on the trial (days off here and there, really only about 4 hours of court time a day max around breaks and such).
After the trial was done we had this Q&A session with the lawyers and everyone chatted about the whole process. We all thought we'd put a lot of thought and time into it and felt that we were fair. Everyone thought that if ever on trial, we'd be ok with a jury similar to ours too. This was actually a pretty good jury, with mostly professional people a student or two and a couple retired. No real low dumb people or losers that fit the stereotypical "Can't get out of jury duty" image. This was just after CA had started the "1 day, 1 trial," rule that makes is MUCH harder to get out of doing jury duty. I don't recall the questionnaire we had to fill out (that was how they cut down the initial 150 people before even starting the usual in-court voir dire) having anything that I was uncomfortable answering either.
I work for a company that pays at least 10 days of JD though, so there's no hardship at all for me. I can easily see the financial hardship issue for those that don't work for such companies.
Miguelitosd at March 3, 2012 11:06 PM
I had a great time at Jury Duty. It was in November, just the time of year where the little f***ers I was teaching were getting antsy. I was so grateful for the vacation! It rocked.
But I was a salaried employee, I didn't get an hourly wage/
NicoleK at March 3, 2012 11:08 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/03/reconsider_jury.html#comment-3023556">comment from whistleDickI've never been called and have no particular knowledge in this area, but don't they normally ask you whether you'd have some particularly extreme hardship associated with serving, such as maintaining a newspaper column?
It doesn't matter and they don't care. Even if you lose everything because of it. Even if you'd be willing to serve on days between your big work days for more than one trial (to make up for not being able to do full weeks).
Amy Alkon at March 4, 2012 12:18 AM
I am 44 and I have only been notified for jury duty once. I never had to do anything more onerous than call each evening for a week to see if my pool of jurors was wanted the next day. It never was. I have had my driver's license since age 16 and been a registered voter since age 18. Those are the two biggest pools from which potential jurors are drawn.
My area pays like $10/ day plus gives you a parking pass at the courthouse or a bus pas to get there.
LauraGr at March 4, 2012 6:59 AM
the number of people who actually understand the law and all the factors of the case as slim
As a jury member, you don't actually have to understand the law. That's what the judge is for. Juries are to determine the facts of the case, the judge rules upon the law.
You can get out of jury duty by simply uttering two simple words jury nullification. You can also try personal responsibility. If the judge doesn't bounce you, one or the other sets of lawyers will.
I R A Darth Aggie at March 4, 2012 8:39 AM
Hi, Astra! How's Phil? He was cool with Colin Ferguson the other night!
-----
"And I wouldn't forget to bring a book this time."
Bring, More Guns, Less Crime, by John Lott.
That'll getcha some time off.
Radwaste at March 4, 2012 8:41 AM
It doesn't matter and they don't care.
I haven't found that to be true. There are a great number of things that can get you out of jury duty.
MonicaP at March 4, 2012 9:11 AM
I think you'd probably be able to get out of it just by being convincingly opinionated.
My husband got out of one by having met the defendant and considering him a real scumbag. He had been planning to be out of town that week so he went to see the judge as soon as he got the notice (small town.)
Once before, he had served on another jury for a civil trial, it took 2 or 3 days, I can't remember. It was something boring that was never mentioned in the news. He was instructed not to discuss it at all until it was over. He said he and one other person on the jury weren't idiots. He managed to steer the rest into electing the other non-idiot into being the forewoman. Before they voted it was getting towards dinner time so he suggested they wait until after the pizza came so they did. His job picked up the difference in pay.
I got called once. I sat in the back and listened to the questioning like I was told to and read a book in between. I managed to read several chapters by midafternoon. They seated the jury and alternates before my name was called. One potential juror got into trouble for being late coming back from lunch break, nearly an hour late. They made her stay after they let everyone else go so I don't know what they did to her. She might have expected the court to feed her. We don't have public transportation, so if she had to walk home or to a fast food place and back they probably let it slide but if she didn't have a really good excuse they might have made her pay a fine or spend a night in jail.
I take online surveys a lot. Months before the trial I was served a survey about Casey Anthony. I swear it took me 3/4 of the way through the questionaire before I even remembered who she was. I kept saying who the hell is Casey Anthony? It sounded slightly familiar but I didn't know where from. I'm really, really bad at names. That survey is probably the only reason I remember her name now. I think that means if I was in her jury pool I could have sat on that one, but I don't live anywhere near there.
One of my friends got called but she was throwing up that day. She called in and they made her show up, anyway, so she took a trash can and her 2 small chidren with her and went. They let her go back home right away.
My son got called twice. Once I took the unopened notice to the court clerk with his mailing address 1500 miles away written on it and told them I doubted he would make it. He got called where he lived once but never left the bench in the hallway and didn't have to come back after the first day.
nonegiven at March 4, 2012 10:13 AM
I was called to jury duty once. They started the day by postponing service for anyone who requested out. I said, "I have a deadline" and that was the end of it. I returned about a month later, and they excused the lot of us (all parties settled).
As for pay, I expect that if each court paid a living wage per hour (depending on the cost of living in each jurisdiction), with a per diem and free child and elder care, there would be more than enough people beating down the doors to serve jury duty.
Michelle at March 4, 2012 3:48 PM
Here you get one deferral just by asking for it. You have to call each evening Friday, then Mon - Th, to find out if you need to report to the Courthouse for voire dire. Even if you don't need to report, you are then excused for six years.
It's an inconvenience, but the state is corrupt enough without professional jurors.
Let me pose this question for thought: Does anyone believe that a jury would say it's OK to take private property from one person and force it to be sold to another just so the government can get more in taxes? My guess is no, and I think a jury of average citizens is goig to be more fair than pretty much any legal professional.
Would I talk about jury nullification? No. Would I vote to convict someone based on a law or technicality that I was adamant was unfair? Same answer.
MarkD at March 5, 2012 7:41 AM
It could be a tax burden, but perhaps this is one area where it's legitimate. The government pays the juror an amount equal to his or her individual salary for the time served, maximum some amount to be determined. For the self-employed it would be an arbitrary but comparable amount. Extreme cases of months long jury time (Does that really happen?) the government partially pays for rent, utilities, etc., in addition.
hadsil at March 5, 2012 10:25 AM
Leave a comment