Webinar Addresses Role Low Juror Compensation Plays in Non-Diverse Juries

 The National Center for State Courts in its webinar showed the film "Judging Juries" (2023) which addressed the widespread absence of racially-diverse juries in criminal cases as a result of (1) prosecutors using preemptory challenges to strike jurors of color based allegedly on non-race-based reasons, such as a bad experience with a police officer or family members incarcerated;  (2) low juror pay creating severe financial hardship for most persons of color serving on a jury, therefore many do not appear in response to the jury summons or ask to be excused.   It also touched on the fact that more than half of the states exclude felons from jury duty unless off probation or on parole.  

Discussion by a panel of court experts concerned surveys of how low juror pay affects diversity;  jurisdictions which have begun paying jurors of low income as much as $100 a day for jury service;  Arizona created a fund to further compensate jurors who serve on lengthy trials.  Some of the programs are funded by private foundations, while others are legislatively-funded but have a trial period after which reauthorization must be sought.

I imagine the NCSC will have the panel discussion available for view on its website, however the film is copyrighted and won't be viewable.

Webinar on Jury Service and Financial Fairness

 On October 30, 2024, 3:00-4:15  pm ET, the National Center for State Courts is hosting a webinar on jury service and financial compensation.  This has long been a concern of mine about which I have frequently posted, most recently on October 3.  It includes a sneak preview of the film JUDGING JURIES which focuses on the financial hardship of jury service to lower-income citizens and the effect on jury diversity.  The film will be followed by a panel of court administrators and community leaders discussing options for increasing juror compensation.

Go to:  https://www.ncsc.org 

and scroll down to the webinars box

Must Jurors Be Truthful During Jury Selection?

 The obvious answer is "of course!"  But this question shows up frequently in word searches in Google.  The entire British and American judicial system has been based for centuries on the paramount importance of TRUTH.  Truth means facts, such as "the semaphore was red when the driver sped through the intersection" or " the freezing point of water is 32 F."  So what are possible consequences of extensive and widely-reported WHOPPERS in the media about political campaigns' outright lies about their opponents?  Having no scientific surveys to support my opinion, I still opine that nothing good can come of this.  One major candidate has publicly said that telling stories that are untrue is acceptable if it serves his purposes.  The message to the average citizen is that lying is acceptable if it serves my purposes.  So if I want to lie when questioned during jury selection because I do not wish to serve because it is a financial burden on my family, then that's an acceptable reason. Really?  It's not!

The past few years a phrase that has become common: "that's my truth."  Rest assured that if you are being questioned during jury selection and you fail to answer truthfully about any of the following, and more, you could be charged with PERJURY, a felony, and be imprisoned, plus fined thousands of dollars if this causes a mistrial:  Do you,

know any of the witnesses who may be called to testify (list is read to the jury panel)

know anything about the facts of this case

know any of the parties or lawyers

have a criminal record at the felony or gross misdemeanor level

know anyone close to you, or have you, been the victim of a crime or sexual assault

have a conviction for DWI (if that is the charge)

have any important events coming up that could be interrupted by service (school exams, medical treatment, a trip planed for a long time, etc.)

have training in medicine (if at issue) or law enforcement training (criminal case)

If you doubt that falsely answering questions during jury selection could lead to serious consequences, here are past posts to take a look at:

2-2-18.    1-22-16.   10-30-15.    5-4-15.   4-28-14.   8-19-13.   8-29-12.   6-8-12.   3-15-12

"Facebooking" Australian Juror Fined $15,000 After Misconduct Leads to Stalking of Victim

 An Australian juror in a rape trial revealed details of the case (including the victim's name and details about deliberations) in which he was sitting to a Facebook Messenger group.  Worse yet, and not anticipated by the miscreant, a member of the Facebook group (5 men) contacted the victim and said that the evidence against the defendant was weak.  The Facebook member accused the victim of making false allegations, that there was no forensic evidence and was wasting taxpayers money. The victim contacted police.  This person ultimately plead guilty to stalking and was fined $8000.  The bad-behaving juror was fined almost $15,000 (U.S. equivalent).  As quoted by ABC News, the judge said the juror "interfered with the administration of justice' and "breached the confidentiality of the jury room."  Pretty mild. How about his misconduct led to the re-victimization of the victim?

Juror in Scottish Trial Fined For Googling Floor Plan of Crime Scene

 The BBC reports that a juror in an Edinburgh rape trial "Googled" a floor plan similar to the crime scene and was found in contempt of court.  She also research the definition of the "not proven" verdict, one of three possible verdicts in criminal trials in Scotland.  The juror violated the court's instructions at the beginning of the trial that the jury was only to consider evidence heard in the courtroom.  The juror, a college lecturer, was fined 400 pounds.

Recent Report Surveying Jurors' Experiences Not Surprising

 Over the years I have frequently posted about frustrations that jurors have with their experience with the judicial system, while generally appreciating the opportunity to serve.  The Truth in Justice Project recently released a report based on multiple focus groups of jurors with diverse backgrounds and affiliations.  Not surprisingly they complained of:

inefficiencies: long waits between times in the courtroom (hear that lawyers?)

financial burden of long trials: I have harped on this for years; at one time Minnesota decreased the daily juror compensation.  Jury duty should not send citizens to the brink of bankruptcy.

disrespect for their time commitment: lawyers and judges need to be aware that they should conduct their lengthy conferences and settlement negotiations other than when jurors are cooling their heels in an often-stuffy jury room.

confusion over legal concepts: plain language is need in jury instructions and lawyers should try to agree on explanations to be given for complex legal terminology

Go to www.astcweb.org