Recent Changes to Washington's Jury Trials: a Great System Made Even Better
| Publication year | 2002 |
| Citation | Vol. 26 No. 02 |
I. INTRODUCTION
The American legal system's commitment to trial by jury cannot be doubted. The United States Supreme Court has noted, for example, that "maintenance of the jury as a fact-finding body is of such importance and occupies so firm a place in our history and jurisprudence that any seeming curtailment of the right to a jury trial should be scrutinized with the utmost care."(fn1) Indeed, the right to a trial by jury is of constitutional dimension.(fn2)
Although the
It was in this spirit that the Board of Judicial Administration created the Washington State Jury Commission in June 1999. The Commission's mandate was to "conduct a broad inquiry into the jury system and examine issues including . . . juror responsiveness, citizen satisfaction from jury service, adequacy of juror reimbursement, and improving juror participation in trials."(fn6)
This Article sets forth a brief summary of the Commission's work and examines, in more detail, certain, specific recommendations of the Commission, including those that have been implemented and those that have not. In addition, this Article provides an update on the status of the Commission's work and proposes recommendations for future changes.
II. The Washington State Jury Commission
The Washington Board of Judicial Administration(fn7) created the Washington State Jury Commission, in part, in response to concerns that "it has become more and more difficult to find prospective jurors."(fn8) The Board of Judicial Administration's action, in turn, was in response to the urging of the Honorable Daniel J. Berschauer, one of the Thurston County Superior Court judges and a jurist long interested in juries and jury reform.(fn9)
The Commission was comprised of "trial court judges; trial court administrators; county clerks; jury managers; attorneys; citizens who have served as jurors; legislators; representatives of labor unions and businesses; state, county, and municipal officials; media representatives; educators; and experts injury management."(fn10)
The Commission first met in July 1999 and issued its report in July 2000. The Commission's report was a document designed to create action--its one year duration was intended to insure that careful study and extended debate did not become goals in and of themselves and that the Commission propose specific recommendations that would result in concrete results. The Commission proffered forty-four separate recommendations, which were organized into the following eight categories: Increasing Summons Response, Accommodating Citizens Called to Jury Service, Protecting Juror Privacy, Improving Jury Selection Procedures, Improving the Trial Process for Jurors, Improving the Deliberating Process, After the Trial, and Declaration of Principles for Jury Service.
Since the Report's publication, several of the Commission's recommendations have been implemented, while others have not. The following is an examination of four of the Commission's recommendations, three of which have been successfully implemented and one that has yet to be achieved.
III. The Commission's Recommendations
This Article focuses on four specific recommendations of the Commission: (1) increasing the compensation paid to jurors;(fn11) (2) encouraging the practice of note taking by jurors in all cases, regardless of the length of the trial, and allowing jurors to review their notes during the trial;(fn12) (3) mandating the practice of allowing jurors to submit written questions, subject to careful judicial supervision, to witnesses during the trial;(fn13) and (4) urging trial judges to "fully and fairly"
The recommendation concerning juror compensation was selected because the Commission identified this issue as one of its highest priorities. The recommendations concerning juror note taking, juror questions to witnesses during the trial, and responding to juror questions during trial were selected because these issues directly impact the trial process and because they resulted in direct and specific changes to Washington's Rules of Procedure.
The remaining recommendations have not been addressed for two reasons. First, many of the recommendations do not directly affect the trial process, at least from the perspective of the parties and the lawyers. For example, the Commission's recommendations concerning increasing responsiveness to juror summons, providing better accommodations for those called to jury duty, and protecting their privacy are issues that, although important, do not directly impact the process of a trial and are largely beyond the control of the parties and their attorneys. Second, many of the recommendations are more educational, and somewhat abstract or esoteric in nature and not necessarily amenable to concrete implementation. For example, several of the Commission's recommendations designed to improve jury selection procedures, the trial process itself, and the deliberation process were presented as general platitudes or guidelines. Similar to the other category, these recommendations identified and addressed issues that are important to the process of trial by jury, but not necessarily subject to specific or uniform action, nor do they directly impact the trial process.
In Washington, jurors in most jurisdictions are compensated $10.00 per day, plus mileage. This fee has been static since 1959.(fn15) If it had been indexed for inflation, jurors would now receive more than $59.00 per day.(fn16)
The Commission recognized that this compensation rate, which does not approximate even minimum wage, is wholly inappropriate for the burden, challenge, and disruption jury service can represent. In recognition that jury service represents "one of the most important civic duties," the Commission labeled this circumstance "unacceptable."(fn17) Indeed, the Commission identified an increase in the fee paid for jury duty as its highest priority.(fn18)
Unfortunately, this priority has yet to be achieved. Although the Washington Legislature has considered proposed legislation,(fn19) the rate of compensation has yet to be changed.(fn20) Given the state's many fiscal priorities competing for limited resources available to the state, an increase is not likely to be achieved in the foreseeable future.
Although the amount of compensation paid to jurors for their service is woefully inadequate, it is difficult to measure...
To continue reading
Request your trial