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