Los Angeles County Trial Courts Test Jury Innovations and Find They Are Effective.

• Author: Connor, Jacqueline A.

Six new ways of treating jurors were implemented in civil and criminal courts, with reactions and benefits being effective and positive with jurors

JURY reform is a matter of paramount interest to the Los Angeles County system of justice. Court personnel and counsel recognize the necessity of treating jurors as a valuable resource. They are a most critical contact with the public and a crucial factor in maintaining public confidence in the system. To that end, Los Angeles Superior Court system has adopted creative approaches to improving the experience of jury service and the quality of justice. The sheer size of court system, however, has been an obstacle to the sharing of these experiences. No studies have been implemented to track the success or to document the effectiveness of innovations already in use.

With the advent of the one-trial-one-day system of juror service, it has become more pressing that jurors' experiences be re-examined. Courts and counsel no longer have the luxury of viewing the jury pool as a limitless resource that can be used, wasted or abused. Costs mount as jurors are kept waiting for unnecessary, unexplained and often avoidable periods of time, as jury panels larger than necessary are summoned, as panels are ordered to be kept "on hold" for actual use hours or days later, as trial time is not maximized, causing jurors to be unable to finish a trial because of financial limitations, and as hardship hearings are delayed, preventing jurors from being recycled to trials where they are needed.

Perhaps most important, the manner in which jurors are treated by courts and counsel, and the extent to which they understand their charge, shape their perception of the justice system. Jurors' two most common and vocal complaints are the unexplained delays that waste time and the "abuse" and gamesmanship of the exercise of peremptory challenges. These two complaints far outweigh any discontent with the juror compensation, which in California has been unchanged since the 1950s, or even with concerns about personal disruptions.

The good news is that many innovations that can make enormous differences cost no more than some time and a heightened sensitivity to the process. In early 1999, the Los Angeles County Superior Court tested and tracked several courtroom innovations under the sponsorship of the Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Innovation Committee. Five criminal and five civil courts were recruited to implement the innovations and to track the results of their use. The five criminal courts were Judges David Wesley, Lance Ito, Terry Green, Thomas Wilhite and Jacqueline Connor. The five civil court were Judges Carolyn Kuhl, Peter Lichtman, Paul Boland, Charles McCoy and Aurelio Munoz.

These courts were asked to execute a list of selected reforms and to send questionnaires to those jurors exposed to the innovations. The number of cases tried to a jury in criminal courts exceeded those in the civil courts, and the documentation from the criminal courts resulted in more than 200 juror responses to the innovations.

JURY INNOVATIONS TESTED

The basic concept and goal behind each of the innovations was to improve juror comprehension. Jurors who clearly understand their charge and responsibility are more likely, absent an agenda, to fulfill their obligation and oath as judges.

The selected innovations were:

* Addressing jurors by their identification numbers, rather than names, in criminal trials.

* Permitting jurors to submit written questions during the trial.

* Presenting opening statements to the entire venire in advance of formal voir dire.

* Providing individual copies of preliminary instructions on the basic elements of the charges or causes of action.

* Providing notebooks to jurors with inserts appropriate to the case.

* Providing individual copies of the final instructions for jurors to read along during the oral recitation and to take into deliberations.

In each court that implemented these innovations, the judges were asked to obtain feedback from the jurors and counsel at the end of the trials, and when possible, to send out questionnaires directly soliciting juror reactions. Following is a brief description of each proposed innovation, followed by an explanation of the mechanics used and variations adopted.

1. Juror Identification Numbers

   The use of jury identification numbers in open court in criminal cases, rather than names, provided a means of complying with the requirements of California statutory law, while addressing the concern expressed by jurors for their privacy and for real or imagined security fears.

2. Opening Statements to Full Venire

   The concept of advance opening statements ("mini-openings") to the entire venire, prior to voir dire, has been used in Arizona for several years, and practitioners have indicated that this provides a factual context for jurors that permits more meaningful responses to voir dire questions. In the absence of a context, questions on voir dire often are posed in a vacuum. This modification has been found to be effective in triggering memories and has resulted in more relevant and timely responses in anecdotal conversations with jurors.

   The formal written responses of the jurors in this study, however, were not helpful as there was a disparity among the participating courts being able to implement this particular innovation. In their written responses, jurors generally were unable to distinguish between opening statements given at the traditional juncture versus the earlier setting. Many of the attorneys did not feel ready to make the opening statement at this early stage, and some judges did not require the innovation if both sides did not agree or were not prepared.

   The anecdotal information from several courts that used this procedure has been very positive, however, with an unexpected result. When this innovation was used before hardship determinations, the number of jurors seeking hardship was drastically reduced. Another added benefit came from jurors in the venire who ultimately were never reached. The preliminary opening statement provided them with a more complete picture of the trial. Anecdotal feedback included expressions of enthusiasm at the prospect of being sent out to another court and gratefulness for the enhanced participation provided. Hence, the rate of satisfaction for those jurors who were not selected, a significant percentage of those called, appears to have been positively affected.

   The key factor in the success of this procedure appears to lie with the level of preparation of trial counsel and the commensurate ability of the trial court to give notice of the availability and benefits of this innovation, whether in final status conferences or in pretrial discussions of trial issues. The prospect of reducing or eliminating requests for hardship excusals provides strong motivation in itself and appears to be validated in case after case.

3. Instructions on Basic Elements

   The concept of providing the instructions on the basic elements in advance of commencement of trial arises from multiple studies and common sense. Jurors become better listeners and better triers of fact if the issues are framed for them and they know what to listen for.

   Jurors often are unclear about the formal charges and issues. Usually the only mention of these are during introductory remarks, and at this early stage, so much new information is being provided that jurors do not really understand what is at issue. If a few remember what the charges are, fewer have any idea what to listen for or why certain issues are being raised, developed or ignored.

4. Juror Notebooks

   Juror notebooks, in contrast to steno pads, provide a place for necessary information to jurors, organized and available in a single location. The notion of providing, as an example, a blank exhibit list...