Should jurors be allowed to volunteer for service, and if so, how often should they be allowed to serve? Should they at least be able to register to be added to the database of prospective jurors and/or confirm that they are in it (and accurately so)?
This is one of the most important sections of the book since many of the points I make reference this topic. Court districts express concern about the very low response to juror summonses. It is very costly to mail out summonses only to have them sent back as undeliverable or thrown in the garbage. Stated another way, if a court clerk wants to have a pool of 100 potential jurors for a given case, s/he will most likely have to mail out between 300 and 1400 summonses depending on the particular community. (I base these numbers on my informal research which indicates a national average response rate of about 20%, but a rate as low as 7% in struggling communities). All of this does not even address the fact that some people show up for jury service so they won't “get into trouble,” but then take the necessary measures to ensure they won't get put onto a case (e.g., demonstrate bias, act like a “harmless crackpot,” pretend to not fully understand English, exaggerate personal hardships, reveal familiarity with the concept of jury nullification, etc.).
With all that in mind, it should be noted that there are still plenty of people who either don't mind serving on jury duty and/or who actually look forward to serving, and wish they could serve more often (or wish they are even summoned at all after moving to a new geographical location). There may be many different reasons why someone might feel this way, but the reasons are irrelevant to this discussion. What matters is how we as a nation respond to the scenario of someone who is able and willing to serve, and who will answer pre-trial interview questions honestly as opposed to having a preconceived strategy for being sent home as quickly as possible.
Many people may not be aware that the vast majority of court districts in America do not accept volunteers for jury service in any manner of speaking, and do not seem to have to have any system in place whereby people can at least add themselves to the juror database (perhaps after moving into town) and/or verifying that their contact information is in the database accurately. The state of New York appears to be an exception, and does facilitate volunteering (within specific established guidelines), and I never once heard anyone assert that this results in some hideous miscarriage of justice for anyone.
Court districts routinely admit that their databases are often outdated and/or contain inaccurate data. Many districts only update their database every two or three years. A person who is able and willing to serve could easily move in and out of a district during that time. A person might also have his/her information listed incorrectly in the database, and will never receive a summons due to a simple inversion of digits in his/her address. A clerical error could also be made. For example, when my father was called for jury duty, he mailed back a polite letter explaining that his mother had just died (which was the truth), and that he would be unable to effectively concentrate on a case during his time of mourning. Thirty years later he still hasn't been re-summoned, and he has been living in the same county all that time. Most likely, a busy and/or careless clerk clicked the “never re-summon” button instead of the “re-summon in three months” button.
Each county seems to have its own way of addressing and rationalizing the issue of volunteering for jury duty. The typical explanation asserts that it is against state law to accept volunteers since jury pools must be chosen from a completely random cross-section of the population. It is my opinion that this is nothing but complete and total political BS. It is also an attempt to cut back on the administrative costs of a clerk processing volunteer applications and/or taking phone calls on the matter.
Before continuing, I would like to make very clear what it is that I am proposing. If nothing else, when a person moves into a new county, it should be very easy for the person to promptly add him/herself to the prospective juror database if s/he chooses to do so. Most likely this would require mailing a photocopy of his/her driver's license along with a signed and notarized document. Under our current system, if a person is truly interested in serving, s/he may have to wait three years just to even be added to the database, and then possibly wait many more years (if not forever) until s/he is randomly selected by a computer. For example, I have been living in my county for over ten years, and I have only just recently been summoned for the first time. This makes no sense in the case of someone who is willing and able to serve, and plans on serving with honesty and to the best of their ability.
I would also like to make clear that I am not implying that people should be allowed to volunteer to serve on a particular case. While that idea might work "in an ideal world," in practice it would lead to people attempting to get themselves onto a given case (probably a major, well-publicized one) for a particular personal reason. One example that comes to mind is that the person has a job that pays employees in full while they are on jury service, and the person would rather be a juror on a lengthy case than at their job. A person might also want the notoriety of serving on a major case, and perhaps is hoping for the proverbial “book deal.” A poor person might want to get onto a lengthy case because even the little bit of money that jury duty pays is better than nothing. And of course a person may want to get onto a specific case because s/he hopes to influence the verdict per his/her own political agenda. My point is that I am not advocating a system in which people can volunteer to serve on a specific case.
What I am suggesting is that it should be very easy for someone to request a jury summons no differently than if they were randomly selected by computer to receive one. Everything else would be exactly the same. The person would not be permitted to serve if s/he served within a given time period (typically two years in order to avoid the scenario of the proverbial “professional juror”). The person would of course would still have to meet all of the other basic qualifications (e.g., at least 18 years old, county resident, non-felon, etc.). I don't understand how this in any way would “skew” the jury pool, or would result in some horrible miscarriage of justice.
Let's be very realistic about this matter. Our jury pools are in no way a random cross-section of the population. Jury pools are comprised of people who were listed accurately in the database (not to mention listed at all), and who chose to comply with their summons as opposed to throwing it in the trash. Jury pools are not comprised of people who are physically unable to attend due to a disability or medical condition yet would otherwise make excellent jurors. Jury pools are not comprised of people who are too poor to be able to transport themselves to the courthouse since (at least in my county) penniless jurors are not offered any money in advance for transportation expenses. The fact that they will receive a $12 check in the mail two to three weeks later is irrelevant.
In plain English, jury pools are comprised of the people who show up to court on a given day. Courts don't get a "random cross-section" of the population nor anything remotely close to such. They simply "get who they get." It is no different than a fisherman who throws a huge net in a lake, waits a while, and then pulls it out and examines what fish (if any) swam into it and stayed there.
We must now examine the matter of who actually ends up on a court case and who is dismissed. If a person doesn't want to serve on a given case, it is very easy for the person to get him/herself dismissed. It is an oversimplification to say that the cross-section of the jury pool that is chosen to serve on a given case is comprised of jurors that the lawyers from both sides agreed upon. While that is true, it is furthermore comprised of jurors who didn't fib in some manner of speaking in an effort to be quickly dismissed from the selection process. In summary, court cases are by no stretch of the imagination judged by a so-called "random cross-section" of the population. Instead, they are judged by the intersection of people who were listed accurately in the court district database, people who chose to honor their summonses as opposed to throw them in the trash, people who were determined to be capable of being fair and impartial, and people who didn't use a preconceived strategy to get themselves dismissed for the given case.
It is absolutely astonishing to me that we do not provide the means for people to volunteer for jury service in a very general sense, and that we do not even let people register and/or confirm their information. A common response to this is, “Under your plan, you're just going to fill jury waiting rooms with a bunch of retirees and a bunch of unemployed deadbeats who need the token monetary compensation.” This is complete nonsense. I am not suggesting that we in any way change our current system of randomly summoning people. I am merely suggesting that anyone who wants to serve, and has intentions of serving honorably should be added to the jury pool as often as they can legally be permitted to serve (e.g., every two to three years, with the exact date determined randomly).
America is officially in a “state of emergency” when it comes to obtaining a sufficient quantity of jurors (let alone reasonably qualified ones) on any given day. We can no longer turn away people who are able and willing to serve, but are waiting for years and years for a summons to arrive in the mail that may never arrive at all. This will not result in any miscarriage of justice unless we allow people to volunteer very frequently and/or volunteer for a particular case, neither of which I am suggesting. It is also worth noting that individuals who feel as though a particular verdict was unjust and/or that the entire American justice system is unjust will continue to feel that way even if we add a small number of volunteers to prospective juror pools each day.
Go to Next Topic
Go to Table to Contents
With all that in mind, it should be noted that there are still plenty of people who either don't mind serving on jury duty and/or who actually look forward to serving, and wish they could serve more often (or wish they are even summoned at all after moving to a new geographical location). There may be many different reasons why someone might feel this way, but the reasons are irrelevant to this discussion. What matters is how we as a nation respond to the scenario of someone who is able and willing to serve, and who will answer pre-trial interview questions honestly as opposed to having a preconceived strategy for being sent home as quickly as possible.
Many people may not be aware that the vast majority of court districts in America do not accept volunteers for jury service in any manner of speaking, and do not seem to have to have any system in place whereby people can at least add themselves to the juror database (perhaps after moving into town) and/or verifying that their contact information is in the database accurately. The state of New York appears to be an exception, and does facilitate volunteering (within specific established guidelines), and I never once heard anyone assert that this results in some hideous miscarriage of justice for anyone.
Court districts routinely admit that their databases are often outdated and/or contain inaccurate data. Many districts only update their database every two or three years. A person who is able and willing to serve could easily move in and out of a district during that time. A person might also have his/her information listed incorrectly in the database, and will never receive a summons due to a simple inversion of digits in his/her address. A clerical error could also be made. For example, when my father was called for jury duty, he mailed back a polite letter explaining that his mother had just died (which was the truth), and that he would be unable to effectively concentrate on a case during his time of mourning. Thirty years later he still hasn't been re-summoned, and he has been living in the same county all that time. Most likely, a busy and/or careless clerk clicked the “never re-summon” button instead of the “re-summon in three months” button.
Each county seems to have its own way of addressing and rationalizing the issue of volunteering for jury duty. The typical explanation asserts that it is against state law to accept volunteers since jury pools must be chosen from a completely random cross-section of the population. It is my opinion that this is nothing but complete and total political BS. It is also an attempt to cut back on the administrative costs of a clerk processing volunteer applications and/or taking phone calls on the matter.
Before continuing, I would like to make very clear what it is that I am proposing. If nothing else, when a person moves into a new county, it should be very easy for the person to promptly add him/herself to the prospective juror database if s/he chooses to do so. Most likely this would require mailing a photocopy of his/her driver's license along with a signed and notarized document. Under our current system, if a person is truly interested in serving, s/he may have to wait three years just to even be added to the database, and then possibly wait many more years (if not forever) until s/he is randomly selected by a computer. For example, I have been living in my county for over ten years, and I have only just recently been summoned for the first time. This makes no sense in the case of someone who is willing and able to serve, and plans on serving with honesty and to the best of their ability.
I would also like to make clear that I am not implying that people should be allowed to volunteer to serve on a particular case. While that idea might work "in an ideal world," in practice it would lead to people attempting to get themselves onto a given case (probably a major, well-publicized one) for a particular personal reason. One example that comes to mind is that the person has a job that pays employees in full while they are on jury service, and the person would rather be a juror on a lengthy case than at their job. A person might also want the notoriety of serving on a major case, and perhaps is hoping for the proverbial “book deal.” A poor person might want to get onto a lengthy case because even the little bit of money that jury duty pays is better than nothing. And of course a person may want to get onto a specific case because s/he hopes to influence the verdict per his/her own political agenda. My point is that I am not advocating a system in which people can volunteer to serve on a specific case.
What I am suggesting is that it should be very easy for someone to request a jury summons no differently than if they were randomly selected by computer to receive one. Everything else would be exactly the same. The person would not be permitted to serve if s/he served within a given time period (typically two years in order to avoid the scenario of the proverbial “professional juror”). The person would of course would still have to meet all of the other basic qualifications (e.g., at least 18 years old, county resident, non-felon, etc.). I don't understand how this in any way would “skew” the jury pool, or would result in some horrible miscarriage of justice.
Let's be very realistic about this matter. Our jury pools are in no way a random cross-section of the population. Jury pools are comprised of people who were listed accurately in the database (not to mention listed at all), and who chose to comply with their summons as opposed to throwing it in the trash. Jury pools are not comprised of people who are physically unable to attend due to a disability or medical condition yet would otherwise make excellent jurors. Jury pools are not comprised of people who are too poor to be able to transport themselves to the courthouse since (at least in my county) penniless jurors are not offered any money in advance for transportation expenses. The fact that they will receive a $12 check in the mail two to three weeks later is irrelevant.
In plain English, jury pools are comprised of the people who show up to court on a given day. Courts don't get a "random cross-section" of the population nor anything remotely close to such. They simply "get who they get." It is no different than a fisherman who throws a huge net in a lake, waits a while, and then pulls it out and examines what fish (if any) swam into it and stayed there.
We must now examine the matter of who actually ends up on a court case and who is dismissed. If a person doesn't want to serve on a given case, it is very easy for the person to get him/herself dismissed. It is an oversimplification to say that the cross-section of the jury pool that is chosen to serve on a given case is comprised of jurors that the lawyers from both sides agreed upon. While that is true, it is furthermore comprised of jurors who didn't fib in some manner of speaking in an effort to be quickly dismissed from the selection process. In summary, court cases are by no stretch of the imagination judged by a so-called "random cross-section" of the population. Instead, they are judged by the intersection of people who were listed accurately in the court district database, people who chose to honor their summonses as opposed to throw them in the trash, people who were determined to be capable of being fair and impartial, and people who didn't use a preconceived strategy to get themselves dismissed for the given case.
It is absolutely astonishing to me that we do not provide the means for people to volunteer for jury service in a very general sense, and that we do not even let people register and/or confirm their information. A common response to this is, “Under your plan, you're just going to fill jury waiting rooms with a bunch of retirees and a bunch of unemployed deadbeats who need the token monetary compensation.” This is complete nonsense. I am not suggesting that we in any way change our current system of randomly summoning people. I am merely suggesting that anyone who wants to serve, and has intentions of serving honorably should be added to the jury pool as often as they can legally be permitted to serve (e.g., every two to three years, with the exact date determined randomly).
America is officially in a “state of emergency” when it comes to obtaining a sufficient quantity of jurors (let alone reasonably qualified ones) on any given day. We can no longer turn away people who are able and willing to serve, but are waiting for years and years for a summons to arrive in the mail that may never arrive at all. This will not result in any miscarriage of justice unless we allow people to volunteer very frequently and/or volunteer for a particular case, neither of which I am suggesting. It is also worth noting that individuals who feel as though a particular verdict was unjust and/or that the entire American justice system is unjust will continue to feel that way even if we add a small number of volunteers to prospective juror pools each day.
Go to Next Topic
Go to Table to Contents