Jury Management:Jury Management:Promising InnovationsPromising Innovations

National Association for Court National Association for Court ManagementManagement

July 13, 2006July 13, 2006

July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 2

We Are:We Are:

Paula Hannaford-AgorPaula Hannaford-Agor Director, Center for Jury StudiesDirector, Center for Jury Studies National Center for State CourtsNational Center for State Courts

Tom MunstermanTom Munsterman director, Center for Jury Studies director, Center for Jury Studies Yes I am retiring Yes I am retiring I just don’t know whenI just don’t know when

July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 3

When Last We MetWhen Last We MetIn Dallas in 2004In Dallas in 2004

(Exactly two years ago)(Exactly two years ago) A big jury year and it isn't over A big jury year and it isn't over Technological applications aboundTechnological applications abound An Interesting Email ApproachAn Interesting Email Approach

Travis County, TexasTravis County, Texas New ABA Efforts in JuriesNew ABA Efforts in Juries The Jury Patriotism ActThe Jury Patriotism Act

As enacted in 8 statesAs enacted in 8 states National Program to Increase Citizen National Program to Increase Citizen

Participation in Jury ServiceParticipation in Jury Service

July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 4

When Last We MetWhen Last We MetIn San Francisco in 2005In San Francisco in 2005

A Panel to Discuss a National A Panel to Discuss a National Association of Jury ManagersAssociation of Jury Managers

Our and your thoughtsOur and your thoughts Other communications meansOther communications means

NCSC JuryManagersList List-ServNCSC JuryManagersList List-Serv

July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 5

ABA Principles ForABA Principles For Juries and Jury Trials Juries and Jury Trials

August 2005August 2005

Principle 2: Citizens have the right to Principle 2: Citizens have the right to participate in jury service and their participate in jury service and their service should be facilitatedservice should be facilitated

Principle 3: Juries should have 12 Principle 3: Juries should have 12 membersmembers

Principle 4: Jury decisions should be Principle 4: Jury decisions should be unanimousunanimous

July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 6

More PrinciplesMore Principles

Principle 5B: Courts should collect and Principle 5B: Courts should collect and analyze informationanalyze information

Principle 7: Courts should protect juror Principle 7: Courts should protect juror privacyprivacy Continued distinction between qualification, Continued distinction between qualification,

jury administration, and voir dire informationjury administration, and voir dire information Methods of voir dire – individual or written voir Methods of voir dire – individual or written voir

dire on sensitive mattersdire on sensitive matters Retention policiesRetention policies No surveillance of prospective jurorsNo surveillance of prospective jurors

July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 7

Principle 10 Courts should use open, fair Principle 10 Courts should use open, fair and flexible procedures to select a and flexible procedures to select a representative pool of prospective jurorsrepresentative pool of prospective jurors 10 B: Courts should use random selection 10 B: Courts should use random selection

procedures throughout the juror selection procedures throughout the juror selection processprocess

10 B 1: Any selection procedure may be 10 B 1: Any selection procedure may be used--that provides each eligible and used--that provides each eligible and available person with an equal probability available person with an equal probability of selection, of selection, except when a court orders an except when a court orders an adjustment for underrepresented adjustment for underrepresented populations.populations.

July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 8

TechnologyTechnology Stratified Selection based onStratified Selection based on

CensusCensus ResponseResponse YieldYield FTAFTA UndeliverableUndeliverable When applied?When applied?

Technology AboundsTechnology Abounds Web used for all jury mattersWeb used for all jury matters Other things: blogs, instant access, ebayOther things: blogs, instant access, ebay

July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 9

Arizona’s Lengthy Trial FundArizona’s Lengthy Trial Fund

Jury Patriotism ActJury Patriotism Act Reimburses jurors serving on lengthy trials for Reimburses jurors serving on lengthy trials for

lost incomelost income up to $100 per day (days 4-10 of up to $100 per day (days 4-10 of trial) and up to $300 per day (days 11+)trial) and up to $300 per day (days 11+)

Unemployed up to $40 a dayUnemployed up to $40 a day Funded by $15 civil filing fee beginning January Funded by $15 civil filing fee beginning January

1, 20041, 2004 Compensation became available to jurors on Compensation became available to jurors on

July 1, 2004July 1, 2004

See See Munsterman & Silverman, “Arizona Jury Reform” Vol. Munsterman & Silverman, “Arizona Jury Reform” Vol. 45, No. 1 Judges’ Journal. 18 (Winter 2006)45, No. 1 Judges’ Journal. 18 (Winter 2006)

July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 10

The experience after 1 yearThe experience after 1 year $613,571 collected in 2004$613,571 collected in 2004 $130,000 disbursed from July 2004 to June 2005$130,000 disbursed from July 2004 to June 2005

172 jurors serving on 40 lengthy trials (2% of trials)172 jurors serving on 40 lengthy trials (2% of trials) 58% expenditures for criminal trials58% expenditures for criminal trials Average reimbursement $750Average reimbursement $750 Courts recovered $3,126 in administrative costs (not enough)Courts recovered $3,126 in administrative costs (not enough)

1 out of 3 jurors serving on lengthy trials requested 1 out of 3 jurors serving on lengthy trials requested compensationcompensation

Forms available on Arizona Judiciary websiteForms available on Arizona Judiciary website

Possible legislative revisions:Possible legislative revisions: Reduce amount of civil filing feeReduce amount of civil filing fee Reduce number of days of service for eligibilityReduce number of days of service for eligibility Remove $100 cap on fee for days 4 through 10Remove $100 cap on fee for days 4 through 10

July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 11

State-of-the-StatesState-of-the-StatesLocal Court SurveyLocal Court Survey

1,186 jurisdictions have responded1,186 jurisdictions have responded Thank you, thanks you, thank youThank you, thanks you, thank you

Some have not-You know who you are!Some have not-You know who you are! Representing 1,288 individual counties and over 2/3rds Representing 1,288 individual counties and over 2/3rds

of the U.S. populationof the U.S. population Focus on local jury operations and jury improvement Focus on local jury operations and jury improvement

effortsefforts

Two other Components:Two other Components: Statewide survey documents legal infrastructure in Statewide survey documents legal infrastructure in

which local courts operate which local courts operate Practitioner survey focuses on individual trialsPractitioner survey focuses on individual trials

July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 12

What’s happening in jury What’s happening in jury improvement efforts?improvement efforts?

Over half of all jurisdictions report some type Over half of all jurisdictions report some type of jury improvement effort in the past 5 yearsof jury improvement effort in the past 5 years

Focus of improvement effortsFocus of improvement efforts Upgrade technology (41%)Upgrade technology (41%) Decrease non-response rates (39%)Decrease non-response rates (39%) Improve jury yield, improve facilities (30%)Improve jury yield, improve facilities (30%) Improve utilization rates (27%)Improve utilization rates (27%) Improve representation, improve public outreach Improve representation, improve public outreach

(22%)(22%) Improve jury instructions (20%)Improve jury instructions (20%) Improve juror comprehension (15%)Improve juror comprehension (15%)

July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 13

Recent changes Recent changes to state jury to state jury fees infees in TexasTexas CaliforniaCalifornia MichiganMichigan

$50.00 CO CT MA ND SD$45.00 UT$41.20 NM$40.00 MI NV NJ NY TX WV Fed$35.00 AR NE$30.00 DC FL HI NC VA$25.00 AK LA MS MT OK OR PA$20.00 DE MN NH$16.00 WI$15.00 CA IN MD RI VT$12.50 KY$12.00 AZ$10.00 AL ID IA KS ME OH SC TN WA WY$6.00 MO$5.00 GA$4.00 IL

Graduated Rate: Reduced or no fee paid for first day or reporting onlyMinimum State Rate: Counties supplement additional fees

Jury Fees in State and Federal Courts

July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 14

Term of ServiceTerm of Service Our best estimate:Our best estimate:

23% of state courts operate under “one 23% of state courts operate under “one day/one trial” term of serviceday/one trial” term of service

encompasses 56% of U.S. populationencompasses 56% of U.S. population 2/32/3rdsrds of state courts have terms of service of of state courts have terms of service of

one month or lessone month or less

50% of courts with terms of service 50% of courts with terms of service longer than one day have 12 or fewer longer than one day have 12 or fewer jury trials annuallyjury trials annually Effectively one day/one trial systems (or Effectively one day/one trial systems (or

could be with little or no effort)could be with little or no effort)

July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 15

Non-Response Rates*Non-Response Rates*

7.2%8.6%

11.0%

14.4%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

Less than 25,000 25,000 to 100,000 100,000 to 500,000 More than 500,000

Population Size

Mea

n N

on

-Res

po

nse

Rat

e

*one-step courts onlyone-step courts only

n=442

n=346

n=181

n=65

July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 16

Effect of Follow-UpEffect of Follow-Up

79% of state courts reported follow-up 79% of state courts reported follow-up effortsefforts

Strong correlation between extent of Strong correlation between extent of follow-up and non-response ratesfollow-up and non-response rates Single follow-up letter or second summons Single follow-up letter or second summons

appears to be most effective (50% of appears to be most effective (50% of courts)courts)

Documented success in Los Angeles, Documented success in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Detroit, and Eau Claire, Wisc.Philadelphia, Detroit, and Eau Claire, Wisc.

July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 17

A Better Measure of Juror UseA Better Measure of Juror Use

Available at http://www.courtools.org

July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 18

A Better Measure of Juror UseA Better Measure of Juror Use(From CourTools)(From CourTools)

What percent of the citizens reporting What percent of the citizens reporting become a juror each day?become a juror each day? 100 report to the pool100 report to the pool 26 are sworn 26 are sworn That’s 26%That’s 26% Should be done over many days and weeksShould be done over many days and weeks

Combines effects of:Combines effects of: Call-in efficiencyCall-in efficiency Calendaring, pleas, settlementsCalendaring, pleas, settlements Panel sizePanel size

July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 19

New Directions from the BenchNew Directions from the Bench

US v. Darryl Green, 389 F. Supp. 29 US v. Darryl Green, 389 F. Supp. 29 (D. Mass. 2005)(D. Mass. 2005) Fair cross section challenge based on Fair cross section challenge based on

effects of non-response and effects of non-response and undeliverable ratesundeliverable rates

Significant expansion of “systematic Significant expansion of “systematic exclusion” definitionexclusion” definition

Overturned by 1Overturned by 1stst Circuit Court of Circuit Court of Appeals on procedural groundsAppeals on procedural grounds

July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 20

And More New DirectionsAnd More New Directions

Jury Service Resource Center v. De Jury Service Resource Center v. De Muniz, S52571 (Ore. filed April 27, Muniz, S52571 (Ore. filed April 27, 2006)2006) Constitutional challenge to the Constitutional challenge to the

confidentiality of source list, master jury confidentiality of source list, master jury list, and jury term list records on First list, and jury term list records on First Amendment groundsAmendment grounds

Distinguishes voir dire (presumptively Distinguishes voir dire (presumptively open to the public under First Amendment) open to the public under First Amendment) from the administrative jury process from the administrative jury process

July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 21

Pending ApplicationsPending Applications

Best Practices for Improving the Response Best Practices for Improving the Response to Jury Summonsesto Jury Summonses Follow-up programsFollow-up programs Source list compilation and managementSource list compilation and management Jury feesJury fees

Urban Courts WorkshopUrban Courts Workshop

Plain-English Jury Instruction WorkshopPlain-English Jury Instruction Workshop

Community-Supported Jury ServiceCommunity-Supported Jury Service

July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 22

New and NoteworthyNew and Noteworthy New NCSC PublicationsNew NCSC Publications

Jury Trial Innovations (2d ed.)Jury Trial Innovations (2d ed.) Communicating with Juries: How to Draft Understandable Communicating with Juries: How to Draft Understandable

Jury InstructionsJury Instructions Compendium publication of findings from the State-of-the-Compendium publication of findings from the State-of-the-

States SurveyStates Survey Website with state-by-state comparisonsWebsite with state-by-state comparisons Datasets will be available for research purposesDatasets will be available for research purposes

Upcoming EventsUpcoming Events ICM Jury Management, October 25-27, 2006 (Orlando, ICM Jury Management, October 25-27, 2006 (Orlando,

Florida)Florida) ABA Jury Symposium, October 26-27, 2006 (Houston, ABA Jury Symposium, October 26-27, 2006 (Houston,

Texas)Texas) Sponsored by ABA Commission on the American Jury ProjectSponsored by ABA Commission on the American Jury Project

July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 23

What You Might DoWhat You Might Do

Subscribe to Jur-E BulletinSubscribe to Jur-E Bulletin Free, weekly and an open communicationFree, weekly and an open communication www.ncsconline.orgwww.ncsconline.org

Select “newsletters”Select “newsletters” Subscribe to JuryManagersList List-ServSubscribe to JuryManagersList List-Serv Get Publications from NCSCGet Publications from NCSC Get Principles from Get Principles from www.abanet.orgwww.abanet.org Get a copy of this presentation from Get a copy of this presentation from

NACM websiteNACM website

July 13, 2006 National Center for State Courts 24