Source: http://www.atra.org/issue/jury-service-reform/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 00:23:15+00:00

Document:
The right to trial by jury is one of our society’s most valued liberties. According to a 1998 American Bar Association public opinion poll, 78% of the public rates our jury system as the fairest way to determine guilt or innocence, and 69% of those surveyed consider juries to be the most important part of the justice system.
Despite the public’s strong support of the jury system, interest in serving on juries has dropped off substantially in recent years. Each year, approximately 15 million Americans are summoned to jury duty. A significant number citizens simply ignore the juror summons. In some urban jurisdictions, fewer than 10% of its citizens respond. While a portion of this non-response rate is attributable to out-of-date records and summonses that are mailed to the wrong address, many citizens simply ignore their civic obligation and opportunity to serve. Those who do arrive at the courthouse often avoid service through “occupational exemptions” that benefit certain professions or come presenting flimsy “hardship excuses” to escape jury duty. All too often, they are successful. Jury duty can impose a severe financial hardship on working people. In most states, employers are not required to pay their employees during any period in which they are absent for jury service. These citizens are faced with receiving only a miniscule court fee (usually $10- 40) per day for their service, an amount that may not even reimburse them for transportation costs. High-income professionals avoid jury service through statutory exemptions, hardship excuses, and lax enforcement of summonses. Juror hardship is particularly great in the small percentage of trials that can last several days, weeks, or months. This trend has made it difficult to fill the jury box, increased courts’ administrative costs, and threatened the constitutional right to a representative jury.
Creating a fund to provide additional compensation for jurors selected to serve on long trials.
Providing that ignoring a juror summons is punishable as a criminal misdemeanor.
No one opposes the effort to encourage greater participation on juries.
Required all people to serve on juries unless they experience undue or extreme physical or financial hardship. Established a lengthy trial fund to compensate jurors up to $300 per juror, per day for trials lasting more than 10 days, starting on the eleventh day of trial. In such circumstances, jurors would also be eligible to retroactively collect up to $100 per day from the fourth day to the tenth day of service. The bill did not specify a financing mechanism, but tasked the Louisiana Supreme Court to develop recommendations for the Legislature to consider at some point in the future. Prohibited employers from dismissing or otherwise subjecting employees to any adverse employment action for responding to a jury service summons. Allowed for one automatic postponement from service.
Jury Service Reform: S.B. 1704 (2005).
Increases juror pay in both civil and criminal cases from not less than $6 per day to not less than $40 per day, beginning on the second day of service. The increased compensation is to be financed by a $4 fee placed on individuals convicted of a crime. Provides prospective jurors with one automatic postponement from service, in which case service must be rescheduled within six months after the date of the original summons.
Jury Service Reform: S.B. 479 (2004).
Provides jurors the right to automatically postpone service one time.
Provides jurors the right to automatically postpone service one time. Reduced the length of service from a two-week term to no more than one day unless selected to serve on a jury. Limits jury service to once every two years. Creates a lengthy trial fund which compensates jurors up to $200 per day, starting on the eleventh day of service – the fund is to be financed by a $10 filing fee on all civil cases. Provides jurors employment protections by prohibiting employers from penalizing jurors who serve. Provides small business protections by allowing an employee of a small business to differ service if another employee from the same firm is already serving in the same period. Increases penalties for no-shows.
Jury Service Reform: S.B. 240 (2005); Amended N.M. Stat. Ann. § 38-5-10.1; Amended N.M. Stat. Ann. § 38-5-2; Amended N.M. Stat. Ann. § 38-5-3.
Provides for: automatic postponement, allowing summoned jurors to reschedule service within six months of the original date; small business protections, allowing jurors who work for employers with fewer than five employees to postpone service if another employee is summoned within the same time period; leave time protection; and an expansion of juror source lists to include income tax filers. The legislation includes a hardship standard, defining that an excused juror must demonstrate that participating in their service would (1) be required to abandon another person under the person’s care or supervision due to the extreme difficulty of obtaining an appropriate substitute caregiver during the period of jury service; (2) incur costs that would have a substantial adverse impact on the payment of necessary daily living expenses of the person or the person’s dependent; or (3) suffer physical hardship that would result in illness or disease. Hardship would not exist solely because a prospective juror will be absent from employment.
Jury Service Reform: H.B. 13 (special session) (2004); Amended Miss. Code Ann. § 13-5-23.
Establishes a lengthy trial fund to compensate jurors up to $300 per day, starting on the eleventh day of service. In such circumstances, jurors who can show hardship may also receive compensation of up to $100 per day from the fourth through tenth days of service. Specifies circumstances under which jurors may be excused from service. Provides for penalties for those who fail to appear: fines up to $500 and/or three days imprisonment, or alternatively community service.
Requires all people to serve on juries unless they experience undue or extreme physical or financial hardship. Establishes a lengthy trial fund to compensate jurors up to $300 per juror, per day for trials lasting more than 10 days, starting on the eleventh day of trial. In such circumstances, jurors would also be eligible to retroactively collect up to $100 per day from the fourth day to the tenth day of service. The bill did not specify a financing mechanism, but tasked the Louisiana Supreme Court to develop recommendations for the Legislature to consider at some point in the future. Prohibits employers from dismissing or otherwise subjecting employees to any adverse employment action for responding to a jury service summons. Allows for one automatic postponement from service.
Juror Service Courts- H.B. 1153 (2011); C.R.S. 13-71-101- 13-71-133.
Requires each juror service summons to include instructions for retrieving jury service acknowledgment information. Allows jurors to be notified by telephone of date changes and requires juror service information to be available via internet for 12 months after time of juror service. Changes mandatory payment to jurors from weekly to within 10 days after service for trial jurors, and “at least on a monthly basis” for grand jurors.
Jury Service Reform: H.B. 1159 (2004); Amended C.R.S. 13-71-104.
Establishes stricter criteria for jurors to be excused from services.
Establishes stricter criteria for jurors to be excused from services. Provides protections for small business by allowing employees of small businesses to reschedule service if another employee from the same firm already is serving on a jury.
Allows jurors of lengthy trials to begin being paid at the higher rate on the first day of service, instead of the fourth day, if their employer does not compensate them.
Jury Service Reform: H.B. 2133 (2006); Amended A.R.S. § 21-222.
Modifies key provisions of ALEC’s Jury Patriotism Act that was adopted in 2003 to make jurors eligible to receive compensation from the lengthy trial fund (up to $300 per day) for those who serve on juries for more than five days. In such circumstances, jurors would then receive additional compensation beginning from the fourth day served.
Jury Service Reform: H.B. 2305 (2005); Amended A.R.S. § 21-202.
Amends criteria for prospective jurors to be excused from service by permitting a person who is at least 75 years of age to have the option to be temporarily or permanently excused from service. Provides that a judge or jury commissioner may temporarily excuse a prospective juror for good cause, such as a lack of transportation or absence from the jurisdiction. Includes technical changes to the statement required for verification of the medical need for an excuse due to a mental or physical condition that makes the prospective juror unfit for service.
Requires all people to serve on juries unless they experience undue or extreme physical or financial hardship. Establishes a lengthy trial fund from a modest filing fee to compensate jurors a minimum of $40 and a maximum of $300 per juror, per day for trials lasting more than 10 days, starting on the eleventh day of trial. In such circumstances, jurors would also be eligible to retroactively collect at least $40 but not more than $100 per day from the fourth day to the tenth day of service. Provides for employee protection by prohibiting an employer to require an employee to use annual or sick leave for the time spent in the jury service process. In addition, it prohibits employers to dismiss or in any other way penalize employees for responding to a jury service summons. Provides for protection of small business owners by requiring the court to postpone the service of an employee if another employee of that business is already serving on a jury. Allows for one automatic postponement from service. Provides for jurors to serve no more than one day unless selected to serve on a trial. Provides that a willful failure to appear for jury duty is a Class 3 misdemeanor.
In 1993, Arizona became one of the first states to initiate a major jury reform initiative when the Arizona Supreme Court established its Committee on the More Effective Use of Juries. The Committee adopted 55 recommendations. Fifteen of these recommendations resulted in immediate changes to the Supreme Court Rules. The implemented reforms primarily aim to increase juror comprehension and involvement in trials. These reforms include encouraging mini-opening statements prior to voir dire, giving jurors copies of jury instructions, providing juror notebooks, allowing jurors to ask questions, and allowing jurors to discuss the evidence among themselves during civil trials. Arizona’s reform is viewed as a model by other states. Arizona did not succeed, however, in implementing universal service recommendations such as expanding juror source lists, using follow-up procedures for non-respondents to jury service, carefully monitoring deferral or excuses from service, and revising statutory provisions for jury pay.
Jury Service Reform: SB 87 (special session) (2005).
Provided the right to one automatic postponement with the requirement that service be rescheduled within six months of the original summons. Protected small businesses (defined as having five or fewer full time employees) by requiring the court to postpone and reschedule the service of an employee of a small business if another employee of that employer is already serving. Limited the frequency of service to no more than once every two years. Prohibited an employer from taking any adverse employment action against an employee solely because the person serves on a jury. Clarified that employers may not require an employee to use annual, vacation, or sick leave time for the period in which he or she leaves. Set stricter for prospective jurors to be excused from service. Increased the maximum fine for contempt for failure to appear from $100 to $300.

References: § 38
 § 38
 § 38
 § 13
 § 21
 § 21