Jury Service: Its Changing in Ohio
| Author | Victor E. Schwartz/Cary Silverman |
| Position | Senior partner in the law firm of Shook/Associate in the law firm of Shook |
| Pages | 101-112 |
Page 101
Jury service is changing in Ohio. In June 2003, the Supreme Court of Ohio unanimously ruled that jurors may question witnesses,1 which may result in a more active participation by jurors during a trial.2 This ruling comes in the midst of the work of a twenty-five member Supreme Court of Ohio Task Force on Jury Service appointed by Chief Justice Thomas Moyer in July 2002.3 The Task Force, which is comprised of judges, attorneys, court administrators, and former jurors, is investigating ways to encourage more citizens to respond to jury summonses, help jurors understand complicated cases, and make the jury system more sensitive to jurors' time and dignity.4 Over the next few months, the Task Force will, among other things, make recommendations to the Ohio Legislature regarding statutory changes to improve jury service.5 Judges, jury commissioners, court administrators, and other court personnel also recently formed the Ohio Jury Management Association (OJMA). ThePage 102 OJMA, which actively promotes jury service enhancements,6 has adopted the Ohio Trial Court Jury Use and Management Standards.7
This Article will explain a few suggestions for legislative changes that would make jury service easier for Ohio citizens and also restore the fundamental democratic concept of having a jury of one's peers-a jury that reflects the community as a whole. These recommendations are based on a model "Jury Patriotism Act"8 developed by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the nation's largest bipartisan, individual membership organization of state legislators, with more than 2,400 members nationwide.9 The goal of the Jury Patriotism Act is simple: to reduce the burden of jury service on those who are called and to make it more difficult for people to avoid their civic obligation to serve on a jury for reasons other than true hardship.10 In so doing, the model act seeks to both protect the constitutional right of a person to serve on a jury, as well as preserve the right to a representative jury in both civil and criminal trials.11 It is common sense legislation that is based on the best practices of state courts.
The model legislation finds support across the political spectrum. Just a few of its supporters include the Council of State Governments, the AFLCIO, the National Black Chamber of Commerce,12 the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), and the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors. Elected officials have responded to this broad-based support. Within months after the Jury Patriotism Act was developed, laws based on the ALEC model were enacted in Arizona, Louisiana, and Utah.13
Page 103
"The right to a jury trial is perhaps the most unique characteristic of the American justice system. Jury service is often hailed as an important obligation of good citizenship and treasured as one of our society's most valued liberties."14 Not surprisingly, national polls indicate that most Americans hold the jury system in high regard.15 According to an American Bar Association (ABA) opinion poll, sixty-nine percent of the public considers juries to be the most important part of the justice system.16
Yet, despite the strong support Americans have for the jury system, many in the public seek to avoid jury service. According to one study by the American Judicature Society, on average, about twenty percent of those summoned to jury duty each year in state courts do not respond.17
Ohio can eliminate some of the headaches of jury service by making the jury system more "user-friendly" to jurors and their employers. It can provide every juror with one automatic postponement of jury service for any reason, limit the length of jury service to no more than one day or one trial, and strengthen employment protection for those who serve on juries. In addition, it can provide better compensation to jurors who need it most-those who find themselves serving as jurors in long trials without pay from their employer.
Page 104
Jury service lacks flexibility. Currently, if an Ohio citizen receives a juror summons for an inconvenient time, he or she must apply to the Jury Commission for a temporary excuse or postponement, which the Commission can then grant or deny.18 Allowing jurors to postpone their service one time for any reason would reduce the rate of avoidance by, for example, professionals who have commitments to patients and clients, or persons who have educational obligations, family responsibilities, or vacation plans. As the ABA has observed, "Deferral of jury service accommodates the public-necessity rationale upon which most exemptions and automatic excuses were originally premised, while enabling a broader spectrum of the community to serve as jurors."19
The Jury Patriotism Act would provide jurors with flexibility that is now lacking in Ohio. The process for obtaining a postponement under the model act would be quick and easy.20 The summoned juror would simply contact the appropriate court official by telephone, electronic mail, or in writing.21 He or she would not have to provide any reason for the postponement-only a date on which he or she would appear for jury service within six months.22 Subsequent postponements would only be available in the case of an emergency, such as a death in the juror's family.23
The Jury Patriotism Act also provides that Ohio grant a second type of postponement aimed at protecting small businesses.24 Currently, it is possible for more than one employee of a business to be called for jury service during the same period.25 Such a situation may be particularly hard on small businesses.26 For this reason, the model act requires the court to postpone and reschedule the jury service of a summoned juror if another employee of his or her business is already serving jury duty.27 ThisPage 105 postponement would not count toward the one postponement for any reason extended to all jurors.28
The maximum term of jury service in Ohio is far too long. Ohio law provides that citizens may be required to serve up to three consecutive weeks.29 Jurors may not spend the entire period of service in the courthouse, but are "on call" and expected to be available during this entire time.30 As one local newspaper observed: "[M]ost people called will cheerfully fulfill their jury duty. But they will not cheerfully waste their time, and shouldn't have to. We still hear too many anecdotes about folks called down to the Courthouse, only to spend their days sitting around waiting to be called."31 A shorter term of service would relieve some of the hardship placed upon jurors.
Ohio should consider adopting the one-day/one-trial system, which would guarantee that a potential juror would not spend more than one day at the courthouse unless he or she were selected to serve on a jury panel.32About half of the nation's courts have already adopted this short term of service.33 During the past three decades, courts have transitioned to the one-day/one-trial system34 as a response to high excusal rates, the inconvenience and hardship resulting from lengthy terms on those who are unable to obtain an excuse, and the frustration and boredom imposed on jurors by lengthy terms of service.35 The combination of the one-day/one-trial system and the fact that about eighty percent of prospective jurors are not selected to serve in trials means that only one out of every five jurors will need to serve more than one day of jury duty.
The one-day/one-trial system works. For example, by adopting the one-day/one-trial system, New York reduced its statewide average term of service, which was previously more than five days, to just 2.2 days-aPage 106 decrease of more than fifty percent.36 In Massachusetts, which has also adopted the one-day/one-trial system, eighty-five percent of summoned jurors complete their jury service in just one day, and ninety-five percent finish in three days.37
Jurors favor the one-day/one-trial term of service. In an early study of juror attitudes, approximately ninety percent of 5,500 jurors selected the one-day/one-trial system as preferable to a 30-day term, and a majority would not object to being called again.38 The one-day/one-trial system term also may vastly reduce the need for hardship excuses. One court found that requests for excusal after the adoption of the one-day/one-trial system dropped to almost one percent, and most of these requests were accommodated by the court's postponement policy.39 It should come as no surprise that the survey also revealed that the one-day/one-trial system increased positive attitudes about jury duty and about the justice system generally.40
Employers also like the one-day/one-trial approach because it means fewer employee absences from work for jury duty. Research by the California Judicial Council found that the majority of employees return to work the next business day after reporting for jury service under the oneday/one-trial system.41 In announcing the adoption of the one-day/one-trial system throughout the California judiciary, Los Angeles Superior Court Presiding Judge James Bascue commented, "We know that one-day/one-trial is in the best interest of our employers and the communities we serve."42
Recently, the National Center for State Courts' Best Practices Institute (NCSC) recognized the one-day/one-trial system as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial