Jury Management Promising Innovations National Association for Court

Jury Management: Promising Innovations National Association for Court Management July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts

We Are: n Paula Hannaford-Agor n n n Tom Munsterman n July 13, 2006 Director, Center for Jury Studies National Center for State Courts director, Center for Jury Studies Yes I am retiring I just don’t know when National Center for State Courts 2

When Last We Met In Dallas in 2004 (Exactly two years ago) n n n A big jury year and it isn't over Technological applications abound An Interesting Email Approach n n n New ABA Efforts in Juries The Jury Patriotism Act n n Travis County, Texas As enacted in 8 states National Program to Increase Citizen Participation in Jury Service July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 3

When Last We Met In San Francisco in 2005 n n A Panel to Discuss a National Association of Jury Managers Our and your thoughts n n Other communications means NCSC Jury. Managers. List-Serv July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 4

ABA Principles For Juries and Jury Trials August 2005 n n n Principle 2: Citizens have the right to participate in jury service and their service should be facilitated Principle 3: Juries should have 12 members Principle 4: Jury decisions should be unanimous July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 5

More Principles n n Principle 5 B: Courts should collect and analyze information Principle 7: Courts should protect juror privacy n n Continued distinction between qualification, jury administration, and voir dire information Methods of voir dire – individual or written voir dire on sensitive matters Retention policies No surveillance of prospective jurors July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 6

n Principle 10 Courts should use open, fair and flexible procedures to select a representative pool of prospective jurors 10 B: Courts should use random selection procedures throughout the juror selection process n 10 B 1: Any selection procedure may be used-that provides each eligible and available person with an equal probability of selection, except when a court orders an adjustment for underrepresented populations. n July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 7

Technology n Stratified Selection based on n n n Census Response Yield FTA Undeliverable When applied? Technology Abounds n n Web used for all jury matters Other things: blogs, instant access, ebay July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 8

Arizona’s Lengthy Trial Fund n Jury Patriotism Act n n n Reimburses jurors serving on lengthy trials for lost income up to $100 per day (days 4 -10 of trial) and up to $300 per day (days 11+) Unemployed up to $40 a day Funded by $15 civil filing fee beginning January 1, 2004 Compensation became available to jurors on July 1, 2004 See Munsterman & Silverman, “Arizona Jury Reform” Vol. 45, No. 1 Judges’ Journal. 18 (Winter 2006) July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 9

The experience after 1 year n n $613, 571 collected in 2004 $130, 000 disbursed from July 2004 to June 2005 n n 172 jurors serving on 40 lengthy trials (2% of trials) 58% expenditures for criminal trials Average reimbursement $750 Courts recovered $3, 126 in administrative costs (not enough) n 1 out of 3 jurors serving on lengthy trials requested compensation n Forms available on Arizona Judiciary website n Possible legislative revisions: n n n Reduce amount of civil filing fee Reduce number of days of service for eligibility Remove $100 cap on fee for days 4 through 10 July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 10

State-of-the-States Local Court Survey n 1, 186 jurisdictions have responded n Thank you, thanks you, thank you n n Some have not-You know who you are! Representing 1, 288 individual counties and over 2/3 rds of the U. S. population Focus on local jury operations and jury improvement efforts Two other Components: n n Statewide survey documents legal infrastructure in which local courts operate Practitioner survey focuses on individual trials July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 11

What’s happening in jury improvement efforts? n Over half of all jurisdictions report some type of jury improvement effort in the past 5 years n Focus of improvement efforts n n n n Upgrade technology (41%) Decrease non-response rates (39%) Improve jury yield, improve facilities (30%) Improve utilization rates (27%) Improve representation, improve public outreach (22%) Improve jury instructions (20%) Improve juror comprehension (15%) July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 12

n Recent changes to state jury fees in n July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts Texas California Michigan 13

Term of Service n Our best estimate: n 23% of state courts operate under “one day/one trial” term of service encompasses 56% of U. S. population n 2/3 rds of state courts have terms of service of one month or less n n 50% of courts with terms of service longer than one day have 12 or fewer jury trials annually n Effectively one day/one trial systems (or could be with little or no effort) July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 14

Non-Response Rates* n=442 n=346 n=181 n=65 *one-step courts only July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 15

Effect of Follow-Up n n 79% of state courts reported follow-up efforts Strong correlation between extent of follow-up and non-response rates Single follow-up letter or second summons appears to be most effective (50% of courts) n Documented success in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Detroit, and Eau Claire, Wisc. n July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 16

A Better Measure of Juror Use Available at http: //www. courtools. org July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 17

A Better Measure of Juror Use n (From Cour. Tools) What percent of the citizens reporting become a juror each day? 100 report to the pool n 26 are sworn n That’s 26% n Should be done over many days and weeks n n Combines effects of: Call-in efficiency n Calendaring, pleas, settlements n Panel size n July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 18

New Directions from the Bench n US v. Darryl Green, 389 F. Supp. 29 (D. Mass. 2005) Fair cross section challenge based on effects of non-response and undeliverable rates n Significant expansion of “systematic exclusion” definition n Overturned by 1 st Circuit Court of Appeals on procedural grounds n July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 19

And More New Directions n Jury Service Resource Center v. De Mun iz, S 52571 (Ore. filed April 27, 2006) Constitutional challenge to the confidentiality of source list, master jury list, and jury term list records on First Amendment grounds n Distinguishes voir dire (presumptively open to the public under First Amendment) from the administrative jury process n July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 20

Pending Applications n Best Practices for Improving the Response to Jury Summonses n n n Follow-up programs Source list compilation and management Jury fees n Urban Courts Workshop n Plain-English Jury Instruction Workshop n Community-Supported Jury Service July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 21

New and Noteworthy n New NCSC Publications n n n Jury Trial Innovations (2 d ed. ) Communicating with Juries: How to Draft Understandable Jury Instructions Compendium publication of findings from the State-of-the-States Survey n n Website with state-by-state comparisons Datasets will be available for research purposes Upcoming Events n n ICM Jury Management, October 25 -27, 2006 (Orlando, Florida) ABA Jury Symposium, October 26 -27, 2006 (Houston, Texas) n July 13, 2006 Sponsored by ABA Commission on the American Jury Project National Center for State Courts 22

What You Might Do n Subscribe to Jur-E Bulletin Free, weekly and an open communication n www. ncsconline. org n n n Select “newsletters” Subscribe to Jury. Managers. List-Serv Get Publications from NCSC Get Principles from www. abanet. org Get a copy of this presentation from NACM website July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 23

July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 24