Comments on: Jury Duty is a Broken Model

By: Jake

Jake — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 22:10:00 +0000

This is similar to the way the county I lived in the Bay Area handled it, and I prefer that model to the one they have here in Multnomah.

I still think the model can be improved. Most people expect to be excused and don't want to serve. This negatively affects the composition of juries, IMO. I guess I'd like to see service as the expectation, with better scheduling wrapped around it.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 09:56:50 +0000

If you really wanted to look into it, I suggest taking a look at the way Montgomery County, Maryland handles its jury pool.

When I was summoned there I had the option to re-schedule in the near future (i.e. I want to come in on Thursday, not Monday) or could push it out 6 months if I was going to be away or in some other way unavailable.

You can check the night before to see if you are excused. Otherwise, show up in the morning. They complete their jury selections by about 1pm and they can give you an estimate as to how long the trial might take depending on what it is.

Worked efficiently from my perspective. No going back multiple days, only a half day commitment unless you got selected, you know the type of trial (civil, criminal, etc.)

By: Jake

Jake — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 08:30:15 +0000

I did factor that into my thoughts. The rolling implementation would phase in the prediction market over the course of 12-15 months, which should create enough of the cattle call jurors to prevent any un-speedy trial hiccups. You could supplement by doing emergency call-ins when the calendar was too heavy.

Over time, prediction would become better, making incentives and cattle calls less necessary.

I do think there's a problem though. So many people find ways to be excused without serving, it makes you wonder who actually serves. I think the negative forces acting against serving on a jury are having an adverse effect on the available pool of jurors, which in turn, could affect the verdicts.

By: Jake

Jake — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 08:29:01 +0000

Stupid rights getting in the way of my great ideas.

I did factor that into my thoughts. The rolling implementation would phase in the prediction market over the course of 12-15 months, which should create enough of the cattle call jurors to prevent any un-speedy trial hiccups. You could supplement by doing emergency call-ins when the calendar was too heavy.

Over time, prediction would become better, making incentives and cattle calls less necessary.

I do think there's a problem though. So many people find ways to be excused without serving, it makes you wonder who actually serves. I think the negative forces acting against serving on a jury are having an adverse effect on the available pool of jurors, which in turn, could affect the verdicts.

By: John E. Bredehoft (Empoprises)

John E. Bredehoft (Empoprises) — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 05:03:12 +0000

Regarding your ideas on scheduling of trials - one potential problem might be the Constitutional right to a speedy trial, as enshrined in the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Let's say for a moment that John Doe's case is ready for trial in late June, but all of the jurors say that they won't be available until September, even with your idea of incentives for serving during lean times. Could the defendant then go free because the right to a speedy trial was not granted?

But frankly, that's the only potential problem that I can see with your ideas, other than budget - and even then, I'm not sure that it would cost substantially more to organize jury availability a little bit better. Right now you have to hire employees to watch potential jurors wait around all day; if things were better scheduled, perhaps there are some cost savings there that would offset the increased costs of incentives and the like.