National Center for State Courts

 

Improving Justice through Leadership
and Service to the Courts

      

  

 

Jury Administration and Management

 

Effective Practice

“One-Day/One-Trial”  The longer traditional legal period of mandated jury service is substantially shortened, to the first day summoned to the courthouse or to one trial, if selected as a trial juror.  

Issues

  1. Must “one-day/one-trial” be adopted legislatively or by court rule, or can it be administratively implemented?

  2. How many more persons have to be summoned for service over a given period to assure jury pools of adequate size when needed?

  3. What are the financial implications of calling and using so many more jurors?

  4. Does “one-day/one-trial” increase opportunities for service?  Does the practice affect the representativeness of the jury?       

Implementation

A variety of methods have been used to adopt “one-day/one-trial.”  Some states, including Colorado and Florida, did so by statute.[1]  Others, like California, utilized a court rule.[2]  Several jurisdictions embraced the practice administratively without the need for formal action by the legislature or the supreme court.[3]

The practice entails calling prospective jurors for service in the same manner, but for a different stated term: One day if not selected for a jury that day; but,  if selected as a juror for a trial, until the conclusion of that trial.[4] Generally, once the shortened term is served, the person is immune from being called upon again for a few years. 

Although the direct costs of summoning so many more people adds to the budget, jurisdictions that have adopted this practice have also realized offsetting cost savings by making other changes to their jury management systems and juror compensation schemes.[5]

Movement to “one-day/one-trial” is credited with greater diversity among jury pools in jury assembly rooms and in the panels called to the courtrooms for jury selection.[6]

History of Use/Replication

The first jurisdiction to implement “one-day/one trial” was Harris County (Houston), Texas, in 1972.  Since then, a large number of states and courts of all sizes have adopted this much shorter term of service for a person called to jury duty.  Today, about 50% of U.S. citizens live in jurisdictions that have moved from much longer terms (up to months in some states).  Some jurisdictions have “tweaked” the practice to fit local circumstances (Harris County’s practice is now “one-half day/one trial”). However, no state or court that has made the change to the shorter term of service has “looked back” and returned to the former practice.  Moreover, every statewide jury reform task force report of the past decade has recommended adopting the change.[7]

Evaluations

Kenneth Carlson, et al., An Exemplary Project: One Day/One Trial Jury System (1977)(LEAA-funded; the first known evaluation); Tina Jones, Impact Two-Day, One-Trial Will Have on Counties in Missouri with Populations of 5,000 or Less (Williamsburg, VA: Institute for Court Management, CEDP Phase III paper, 2000).

Contacts

G. Thomas Munsterman, Director of the Center for Jury Studies, National Center for State Courts, (703) 841-5620, tmunsterman@ncsc.dni.us

Statewide legislative implementation contact: Chester Mount, New York Unified Court System (212) 428-2990, cmount@courts.state.ny.us

Statewide change by rule contact: Kim Taylor, California Administrative   Office of the Courts (415) 865-7588, kim.taylor@jud.ca.gov

Urban court adoption administratively: Hugh Gallagher, Maricopa County (Phoenix) Arizona, Court Administration (602) 506-3204, hgallagh@superiorcourt.maricopa.gov

Rural county success story: Robin Bearden, Court Administration, El Dorado County (Placerville), CA, (530) 621-5446, rbearden@co.eldorado.ca.us

Further Reading

American Bar Association, The American Jury: Changes for the 21st Century (1999) www.abanet.org/justice/pubs/rdamerjury.html

American Judicature Society, Enhancing the Jury System: A Guidebook for Jury Reform  (1999) www.ajs.org

Council for Court Excellence, Juries for the Year 2000 and Beyond: Proposals to Improve the Jury Systems in Washington, D.C. (1998) www.courtexcellence.org

National Center for State Courts, G. Thomas Munsterman, et al., Jury Trial Innovations (1997) www.ncsconline.org/D_Comm/Projects/PUB_CAT.HTML

[1] Colorado, C.R.S. Sec. 13-71-120;  Florida, F.R.S. Sec. 40.41.
[2] Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 861.
[3] E.g., Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona,  Contact Person: Hugh Gallagher (602) 506-3204 hgallagh@superiorcourt.maricopa.gov;  DeKalb County (Atlanta), Georgia, Contact Person:  Diana Arthur (404) 371-2838 dwarthur@dekalb.ga.us.
[4] Some jurisdictions require persons summoned to be "on call" for more than one day.  For example, the California rule referred to in footnote 2 above restricts the "on call" period to five days.
[5] See, generally, G. Thomas Munsterman, Jury System Management, 74-75 (1996); Janice T. Munsterman, et al., The Relationship of Juror Fees and Terms of Service to Jury System Performance  (National Center for State Courts Project Report, 1991).
[6]E.g., Washington State Jury Commission, Report to the Board for Judicial Administration, 13 (2000)(report is on-line at www.courts.wa.gov/programs_orgs/pos_jurycomm/?fa=pos_jurycomm.report;  California’s experience is reported at www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courtnews/03990499.pdf; G. Thomas Munsterman, Jury Trial Management , 69-74 (1996).
[7] The California and Washington State reports are referred to in note 6, above.  

National Center for State Courts
300 Newport Avenue
Williamsburg, VA 23185
Phone (800)616-6109 Fax (757)564-2022
Questions or Comments - email webmaster@ncsc.dni.us
Copyright © 2002 The National Center for State Courts. All Rights Reserved.