About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

79 Judicature 216 (1995-1996)
A Brief History of State Jury Reform Efforts

handle is hein.journals/judica79 and id is 218 raw text is: A brief history of state jury reform efforts Recent jury system changes in Arizona and New York are only the latest in a series of reforms going back more than 30 years. by G. Thomas Munsterman n 1994 Arizona and New York is- sued major jury reform reports' that were important not only be- cause of the changes that re- sulted, but because of the direction they provide to other states. The focus of these reports is the jury-what can be done to make this important func- tion of democracy feasible for more people? What methods will facilitate its task and make the experience of serving more rewarding? As a result of the New York Jury Project's recommendations, in July 1995, Chief Judge Judith Kaye listed 155 changes. These ranged from higher fees for jurors, reduced terms of service, and greater judicial supervi- sion of voir dire to an 800 complaint number and ajuror ombudsman. The innovations in Arizona, discussed in another article in this issue, also cover the whole jury process from improved follow up of non-responders to permit- tingjurors to ask questions of witnesses and to discuss the evidence prior to de- liberations in civil cases. These two state efforts at improving their jury sys- tems represent the most recent and G. THOMAS MUNSTERMAN is director of the Center for Jury Studies, National Cen- ter for State Courts. most innovative efforts during a time when the jury system is undergoing great scrutiny. They also represent state level acceptance of innovations previously practiced by only individual judges or courts. There have also been many other efforts at jury reform in the states in the last 30 years. This article will ex- amine a number of them. It is not meant to be an authoritative history, but a look at the major changes that have led to notable and widespread jury improvements. Beginning in the 1960s the pace of jury system change accelerated. Fuel- ing efforts were the development of court management, challenges to the representativeness and the random- ness of the jury selection process, the desire to make jury systems mindful of the citizen's time and the cost to com- munities, and the availability of auto- mation. While many changes were in the more administrative areas of the jury system, a number affected the courtroom as well, particularly changes in voir dire and the size ofjuries. Judges provided the impetus for some changes, legislators devised oth- ers. Attendance at national confer- ences and judicial workshops enabled judges to share and discuss ideas. U.S. Supreme Court decisions brought some ideas to the fore, as when the Court decided that juries of less than 12 were permissible. The Uniform Ser- vice and Selection Act of 1970 con- tained a number of improvements that many states were inspired to adopt, sig- nalling a movement away from highly discretionary systems in which jury commissioners were at liberty to in- clude or exclude persons at will. Un- der the act the source list had to begin with the list of registered voters; others could be added to expand inclusive- ness. In addition, persons were not to be excused because of their profession and random procedures were to be spelled out and documented. Jury management was no longer an infor- mal gathering of friends. The '60s and '70s Although not a conscious unified ef- fort, a number of important changes originated in Texas in the 1960s and 1970s and found their way into jury sys- tems throughout the country. The first was the use of a call-in system whereby jurors call the courthouse the evening before reporting to find out via a re- cording whether or not to report. The selection of several juries from a single panel of prospective jurors with the selected jury reporting several days later for the start of the trial was first reported in Beaumont, Texas. This technique, called multiple voir dire, is particularly useful in small courts where concentrated voir dire provides for wise use of jurors' time and more rapid voir dires. And then there was the idea of the firecracker jury, in- troduced in Houston in 1971. Persons were called in to participate in only one voir dire. If selected, they served on only that one trial. If not selected, 1. THEJURY PROJECT, REPORT TO THE CHIEFJUDGE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (March 31, 1994);JURORS: THE POWERS OF 12, Report of the Arizona Supreme Court Committee on More Effective Use of Juries, (November 1994). 216 Judicature Volume 79, Number 5 March-April 1996

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most