ARIZONA SUPREME COURT
COMMITTEE ON MORE EFFECTIVE USE OF JURIES

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

A. PUBLIC AWARENESS:

1. Undertake Programs of Public Education About Juries and Jury Trials

New and innovative programs by bench, bar, schools and others are needed to better acquaint the adult and youth populations with the institution of the jury, with jury service and with jury trials so that public attitudes toward all three will improve.

Back to Top

B. SUMMONING JURORS:

2. Improve Current Juror Source Lists

Current source lists should be updated and improved by obtaining current mailing addresses and social security numbers of eligible citizens.

3. Use Additional Juror Source Lists

New and additional source lists should be added to the two currently used (voter registration and driver's license rolls) to provide a master list that is more representative of the adult population.

4. Improve Jury Diversity through "Random Stratified Selection"

Juror representativeness can and should be improved by the use of "random stratified selection" from the master lists, i.e., random selection for jury duty from separate lists in proportion to the racial and ethnic mix of each county's population.

5. Study Summoning Jurors on Regional Basis

The feasibility of summoning jurors on a regional or weighted basis as a way of improving the diversity of juries should be studied.

6. Striking of Grossly Unrepresentative Jury Panels

Trial judges should be educated in the use of their power to strike grossly unrepresentative jury panels and juries where failure to do so might result in an injustice.

7. Obtain More Demographic Information from Jurors

In order to facilitate "random stratified selection," more demographic information should be collected from persons summoned for jury duty than is obtained now.

8. Supply More Information to Persons Summoned

More information concerning jury service should be communicated and made available to persons summoned for jury duty and it should be done earlier than it is now. For example, information about the summoning, deferral, excusal, jury selection and jury trial phases of their service should accompany the initial summons and could be broadcast by media as a public service.

9. Limit Potential Juror Report Dates

In fairness to potential jurors and others, report dates should be limited by law to two in counties where the term of service is one day-one trial. After having been told to report on a given date, many persons receiving summons who are not needed that day are told by court staff to phone in the next day and up to as many as five court days total. This uncertainty about future service results in substantial inconvenience and frustration for persons summoned and their employers.

10. Deal with Failures to Respond to Jury Summons

The follow-up procedures provided by statute for those who fail to respond to jury summons should be uniformly complied with, preferably with the aid of automation, but manually if necessary.

11. Handling and Monitoring Requests for Deferral and for Excusal of Service

Administratively granted deferrals and excusals from service should continue, but under increased judicial oversight.

12. Update and Expand Initial Courthouse Orientation

Current juror orientation videos and other materials should be updated and expanded to include new procedures adopted following this report.

13. Improve Rate of Utilization of Potential Jurors

Judicial and administrative policies and procedures should be initiated or improved so that the rate of utilization of persons called to the courthouse for duty can be improved. If a higher percentage of persons summoned actually serve, fewer persons will have to be called.

14. Show Appreciation to Potential Jurors Not Needed for Juries

Trial courts, through judges and public awareness programs, should do more to inform the public in general and all jurors in particular of the efforts of the court to minimize juror inconvenience. Those who reported but who were not selected for a jury should always be thanked.

15. The Needs of Jurors who are Disabled Should be Met

To ensure maximum possible participation of disabled persons in jury service, and to fully comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), two needs must be addressed: (A) The Supreme Court should require that the trial courts promptly comply with the ADA, especially where jurors are concerned, and (B) Educational programs on these subjects should be conducted for judges and court staff.

16. Reform and Improve Juror Pay and Mileage

Statutory provisions for juror pay should be revised to increase public participation in jury service in general, to facilitate efforts to create more representative juries and out of consideration for those who do sit on trial juries. Jurors should receive fifty dollars for each day of service. Employers should be required to pay for the first three days of service; the court for the fourth day and thereafter. The court should pay all of the fees for unemployed persons. Reimbursement for mileage should be limited to those persons required to travel long distances to court.

17. Juror-Supplied Locating Information Should Remain Confidential During Jury Selection and Thereafter

Given legitimate concerns about juror privacy and safety if juror locating information (addresses, phone numbers, business names) is given to the parties and their attorneys, such detailed information should be withheld from both. Instead, only reasonably specific information concerning the location of residence and work place should be disclosed for purposes of jury selection. However, the jury commissioner would need to continue to collect specific locating information.

Back to Top

C. JURY SELECTION:

18. Encourage Mini-Opening Statements Before Voir Dire

To make examination of the jury panel more meaningful to the parties, the court and the jurors themselves, judges should have counsel give a brief, non-argumentative opening statement about their cases before questioning.

19. Allow Judges to Choose Between the "Struck" and the "Strike and Replace" Methods of Jury Selection

Civil and criminal rules should be revised to allow trial judges to choose between jury selection methods, using either the "struck" system (all panel members participate in voir dire) or the "strike and replace" procedure (only the minimum number of jurors needed for strikes participate), depending on the judge's preference.

20. Assure Lawyers the Right to Voir Dire in All Cases

Lawyers for the parties ought to be entitled to examine prospective jurors in both civil and criminal cases. Trial judges should monitor lawyer voir dire to ensure that interrogation by counsel remains consistent with the purposes of voir dire and to safeguard juror privacy.

21. Judges Should Receive Training in Voir Dire

All judges, but especially new judges, should receive mandatory training and education in the conduct of voir dire.

22. Protect Juror Privacy During Voir Dire

In addition to monitoring lawyer questions to prevent unreasonable and unnecessary intrusions into the privacy of jurors' lives, the trial judge should provide alternatives for jurors who do not wish to answer particular questions in open court. The jury panel should be informed of these options prior to questioning.

23. Continue Peremptory Strikes in Present Form and Number

Peremptory strikes should be retained in their present number, as they are necessary for the selection of a fair jury.

24. Vigorously Enforce Batson Safeguards

In order to protect the rights of the parties and of potential jurors, trial judges should be vigilant and, where necessary, take the initiative to assure that there is an objective and verifiable race, ethnic and gender-neutral basis for every peremptory strike of a potential juror.