| Bar Bulletin |
March,
2003 |
| MSBA News |
|
Court Considers
Jury Reform
By Janet Stidman Eveleth
Most Americans believe
jury service is an integral part of our country’s judicial system, but
they don’t want to be the ones to serve on a jury. They want no part of
jury duty. Some look for every possible reason to be excused, while others
don’t bother to show up at all when summoned. Jury participation is a
growing problem across the country, and some states, including Maryland,
are considering measures to improve jury service and motivate more jurors
to participate in the process.
In Maryland, up to 25
percent of jurors summoned in some jurisdictions are “no-shows” every day,
reflecting a disturbing trend. Many of those who show up want to be
excused from service, usually for child care concerns, medical problems or
financial reasons. Others find jury duty time-consuming and inconvenient,
claim they’re too busy and can’t be bothered, or complain their employers
won’t pay them for the time off.
To improve jury
service, ease juror dissatisfaction and build up the state’s jury pool,
the Court of Appeals of Maryland created a special Council on Jury Use and
Management (CJUM) in 1998. It launched a comprehensive study and uncovered
a number of juror concerns, including economic hardships, inadequate juror
compensation, a lack of juror instructions and insufficient information.
To address these concerns, CJUM proposed a package of jury reforms to make
jury duty more attractive to the public in early 2000.
To enhance the quality
of jury service, CJUM recommended better employer compensation, more
comfortable jury assembly facilities, minimal waiting periods and a more
interactive role during the trial. Other reforms include the fuller
participation of alternates, additional information and juror instructions
and changes in jury selection and trial procedures. The Council has
submitted some of these proposals to the Court’s Standing Committee on
Rules of Practice and Procedure for its review.
Recommended Jury Reforms
Under the leadership of
CJUM Chair Judge Dennis Sweeney, the Council is working with the Court of
Appeals to move some of these recommendations forward. Jury treatment
issues are a top priority. “We are looking at ways to help jurors,”
reports Sweeney, “by expanding existing services and implementing new
measures.”
As an example, he
points to high-profile/high-stress cases. “We would like to offer
counseling to all jurors who are involved in high-stress cases to help
them deal with disturbing issues that evolve from a trial, like heinous
murder, extreme violence or child molestation,” he explains. Counseling is
now offered occasionally, but Sweeney would like to see this resource
available to jurors on a regular, on-going basis.
The Council is also
examining the jury service policies of many employers across the state,
including law firms. “We want to encourage employers to develop and
implement juror-friendly policies,” states Sweeney. “There are some
policies out there that are real disincentives to jurors. We hope our
strategy of encouragement results in ‘friendlier’ policies so that it
won’t be necessary to address this situation through legislation.”
Many of CJUM’s reforms
are now under consideration by the Court’s Standing Committee on Rules of
Practice and Procedure. First, it is reviewing a proposal that would allow
alternate jurors to play a more active role in the jury process. According
to Sweeney, the Council would like to utilize “the expertise and
involvement” of alternates in civil cases, allowing them to deliberate and
be part of the jury, rather then dismissing them at the conclusion of the
trial.
“This proposal is
modeled after the federal rule which permits alternate jurors in civil
trials to continue as part of the jury,” explains Sweeney. “In this way,
the alternates could remain involved in the process, deliberating and
rendering a verdict rather than being abruptly cut off when the trial
ends. It’s friendlier, allows additional ideas and input from jurors, and
makes alternates feel more connected to the process.”
In addition, the Rules
Committee is taking up a CJUM recommendation to continue the participation
of alternate jurors in criminal cases. “While it is unlikely that we would
send alternates to deliberate, we could keep them available and utilize
them in the event a juror becomes ill,” states Sweeney. “They could remain
a valuable resource,” states Sweeney. “Currently, alternates cannot be
called back once they are dismissed at the conclusion of the trial.”
Another reform calls
for the jury selecting its own foreperson, as opposed to one being
appointed by a judge. Yet another calls for the formalization of advance
juror questionnaires. While these are already distributed to jurors, this
reform would set forth procedures for written questionnaires to jury
panels in complex cases. Clarification of jury note-taking during trial is
also under consideration, to establish a process and make it more
explicit.
Many of these proposals
are now under consideration by the Rules Committee. “We are at the
preliminary stage of moving things forward,” notes Sweeney. “While no time
frame is set, we would like to ultimately make jury service more inviting
for Maryland citizens to hopefully attract more interested jurors.”
