Title: Los Angeles County Trial Courts Test Jury Innovations and Find They Are Effective
Abstract: Six new ways of treating jurors were implemented in civil and criminal courts, with reactions and benefits being effective and positive with jurors JURY reform is a matter of paramount interest to the Los Angeles County system of justice. Court personnel and counsel recognize the necessity of treating jurors as a valuable resource. They are a most critical contact with the public and a crucial factor in maintaining public confidence in the system. To that end, Los Angeles Superior Court system has adopted creative approaches to improving the experience of jury service and the quality of justice. The sheer size of court system, however, has been an obstacle to the sharing of these experiences. No studies have been implemented to track the success or to document the effectiveness of innovations already in use. With the advent of the one-trial-one-day system of juror service, it has become more pressing that jurors' experiences be re-examined. Courts and counsel no longer have the luxury of viewing the jury pool as a limitless resource that can be used, wasted or abused. Costs mount as jurors are kept waiting for unnecessary, unexplained and often avoidable periods of time, as jury panels larger than necessary are summoned, as panels are ordered to be kept hold for actual use hours or days later, as trial time is not maximized, causing jurors to be unable to finish a trial because of financial limitations, and as hardship hearings are delayed, preventing jurors from being recycled to trials where they are needed. Perhaps most important, the manner in which jurors are treated by courts and counsel, and the extent to which they understand their charge, shape their perception of the justice system. Jurors' two most common and vocal complaints are the unexplained delays that waste time and the abuse and gamesmanship of the exercise of peremptory challenges. These two complaints far outweigh any discontent with the juror compensation, which in California has been unchanged since the 1950s, or even with concerns about personal disruptions. The good news is that many innovations that can make enormous differences cost no more than some time and a heightened sensitivity to the process. In early 1999, the Los Angeles County Superior Court tested and tracked several courtroom innovations under the sponsorship of the Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Innovation Committee. Five criminal and five civil courts were recruited to implement the innovations and to track the results of their use. The five criminal courts were Judges David Wesley, Lance Ito, Terry Green, Thomas Wilhite and Jacqueline Connor. The five civil court were Judges Carolyn Kuhl, Peter Lichtman, Paul Boland, Charles McCoy and Aurelio Munoz. These courts were asked to execute a list of selected reforms and to send questionnaires to those jurors exposed to the innovations. The number of cases tried to a jury in criminal courts exceeded those in the civil courts, and the documentation from the criminal courts resulted in more than 200 juror responses to the innovations. JURY INNOVATIONS TESTED The basic concept and goal behind each of the innovations was to improve juror comprehension. Jurors who clearly understand their charge and responsibility are more likely, absent an agenda, to fulfill their obligation and oath as judges. The selected innovations were: * Addressing jurors by their identification numbers, rather than names, in criminal trials. * Permitting jurors to submit written questions during the trial. * Presenting opening statements to the entire venire in advance of formal voir dire. * Providing individual copies of preliminary instructions on the basic elements of the charges or causes of action. * Providing notebooks to jurors with inserts appropriate to the case. * Providing individual copies of the final instructions for jurors to read along during the oral recitation and to take into deliberations. …
Publication Year: 2000
Publication Date: 2000-04-01
Language: en
Type: article
Access and Citation
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot