NCJ Number
171869
Journal
Judicature Volume: 79 Issue: 5 Dated: (March-April 1996) Pages: 216-219
Date Published
1996
Length
4 pages
Annotation
This article reviews State jury reform efforts from the 1960s through the early 1990s.
Abstract
Beginning in the 1960s, the pace of jury system change accelerated. Fueling efforts were the development of court management, challenges to the representativeness and the randomness of the jury selection process, the desire to make jury systems mindful of the citizen's time and the cost to communities, and the availability of automation. Although not a conscious unified effort, a number of important changes originated in Texas in the 1960s and 1970s and found their way into jury systems throughout the country. One of the changes was the use of a call-in system, whereby jurors call the courthouse the evening before reporting to find out by means of a recording whether or not to report. Another innovation was 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. Other changes involved reduced terms of service, the elimination of all exemptions from jury service based on profession, as well as an overall limiting of excuses. An innovation for which Massachusetts deserves the most credit was the new juror fee structure. Employers are required to pay the salaries of employees on jury duty for the first 3 days while the court pays nothing. The adoption by the American Bar Association and other national court organizations of "Standards Relating to Juror Use and Management" in 1983 provided a basis by which States could examine their jury systems. Fourteen States have now adopted standards based on the ABA Standards. In 1994 Arizona and New York issued major jury reform reports. Some of the recommended changes were higher fees for jurors, reduced terms of service, and greater judicial supervision of voir dire. Arizona's innovations included improved follow-up of non-responders and permitting jurors to ask questions of witnesses and to discuss the evidence prior to deliberations in civil cases. 2 figures