See Juror Pay: State Links.

A few courts allow jurors to donate their pay. See “Juror Donation Table” and “Donation of Juror Fees,” Tom Munsterman, Jury News (Spring, 1995).

See Table 39, "Trial Juries: Qualifications and Source Lists for Juror Service,” in David Rottman et al., State Court Organization, 2004 (Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2006). The table includes permissible sources of the master list, minimum age, time since prior jury service, felon disenfranchisement, residency requirements, and literacy/language requirements, along with statutory authorities.

Automatic exemptions are rare and vary from state to state. Twenty-eight states allow no exemptions, and a few more allow them to a limited group of people in special circumstances. Examples of categories of exempt positions include active military, public officials, medical or other emergency personnel, and law enforcement.

Excuses differ from exemptions in that they may be exercised by the person called for jury service. Age, date of prior jury service, undue hardship, and some disabilities may excuse one from jury service. 

For a state-by-state list, see Table 40, "Trial Juries: Exemptions, Excusals and Fees” and Table 39: "Trial Juries: Qualifications and Source Lists for Juror Service," in Rottman et al., State Court Organization, 2004.

States use a variety of sources to compile their jury lists. Driver’s licenses, voter registration, telephone directories, tax rolls, utility customers, and motor-vehicle registrations are some examples of authorized sources. Sources for jury lists are usually not mandatory; that a source is permitted does not mean that it is the source actually used.

See Table 39: "Trial Juries: Qualifications and Source Lists for Juror Service," in Rottman et al., State Court Organization, 2004.

People do not respond to summonses for a variety of reasons. They may simply forget. In these cases, reminders from the court have proven effective.

Public-education campaigns have been helpful in that they alert and inform the public about the importance of jury service. The New York Unified Court System holds an annual media contest to publicize jury service. Jury-appreciation weeks and related events are held in courts around the country.

Often, address lists used by the courts are outdated. Source lists should be updated regularly to ensure that mail reaches the intended recipients. This is particularly true in large urban areas, where the population moves frequently.

See  G. Thomas Munsterman,"What to Do, Oh What to Do with People Who Don't Answer the Summons?" Jury News (Summer 1995).

Many courts provide pamphlets, juror orientation, and other resources to prospective jurors. See Juror Information: State Links.

While employers face sanctions if they do not allow employees to report for jury service, they are not necessarily required to pay them for it. Note that if an employer voluntarily pays employees, it may affect what the court pays the juror. This is the case in Florida. See Juror Pay.

Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New York, and Tennessee require employers to pay employees while the employees report for jury service, at least to some extent.

For a state-by-state list of employer obligations, see Table 40, "Trial Juries: Exemptions, Excusals and Fees” in Rottman et al., State Court Organization, 2004.

Most states permit juries of less than 12 in misdemeanor or civil cases, or by waiver/agreement of parties. The majority of states retain 12-person juries for felony cases. For a complete list of state jury sizes and verdict rules, see Table 42, "Trial Juries: Size and Verdict Rules," Rottman et al., State Court Organization, 2004.

The main argument for reducing the size of juries is that doing so will save time and money. Although courts may realize a savings in resources, researchers have studied how the size reduction affects the jury’s ability to render just decisions.

The debate is ongoing about the advantages and disadvantages of reducing jury size. Two Supreme Court opinions (Williams decided in 1970 and Colgrove in 1973) held that a jury comprising 6 as opposed to 12 members does not violate a defendant’s constitutional rights to a fair and impartial jury.

One of the earliest studies on the topic found that statistically, compared to 12-person juries, 6-person juries:

• perform worse when recalling evidence;
• are less representative of the community;
• are more variable in awards; and
• are less likely to deadlock.

See Harry Kalven and Hans Zeisel, The American Jury (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971) (KF9680 .K3 1971).

Reducing the jury size also potentially undermines public confidence that juries reflect a fair cross-section of their communities.  Implications of predictability are critical to court administration insofar that effective plea-bargaining and settlement negotiations rely on more predictable outcomes. Yet research evidence overwhelmingly points to greater variability in civil-award amounts for smaller juries as compared to larger juries. Along a similar vein, statistical theory predicts 6-person criminal juries will deliver more erroneous acquittals than 12-person juries. For more information on this topic, please refer to Nicole L. Mott, “Does Jury Size Matter” (August 2004).

Although jury trials can last anywhere from a few hours to several months, the average length is estimated to be three to seven days. It is longer in some jurisdictions, shorter in others.