Jury Management

Resource Guide

The entire jury process, from compiling master lists to summoning potential jurors to debriefing jurors after trial, while fraught with constitutional and public policy issues and complicated logistics, is an important area for courts. As such, It is imperative that jury management is done in an efficient and unbiased manner to ensure that the jury pool represent a cross-section of the community.

Links to related online resources are listed below. Non-digitized publications may be borrowed from the NCSC Library; call numbers are provided.


Featured Links

Jury Service Scams.

In early 2014, the NCSC created a page that identified a number of states that had issued statewide jury service scam alerts.

Aikman, Alexander B. Making the "Pain of Real People" Part of Courts' Budget Arguments. (2012). Future Trends in State Courts. Stressing the importance of “due process” and other constitutional concepts in discussing the courts’ budget needs is important, as far as it goes. However, courts must drive home the effects of lowered court budgets on the lives of people and on businesses.
Hannaford-Agor, Paula and Nicole L. Waters. The Evolution of the Summary Jury Trial: A Flexible Tool to Meet a Variety of Needs. (2012). Future Trends in State Courts. Are summary jury trials a viable forum for dispute resolution? The National Center for State Courts studied summary trials in six state courts to understand how these programs work and to determine the benefits and detriments of this approach to dispute resolution.

General

Ann Keith and Paula Hannaford-Agor. A National Program to Increase Citizen Participation in the Jury System.. (2002). National Center for State Courts, Future Trends in State Courts 2002.

This article discusses solutions to increasing jury participation as well as making jury service more accommodating for others.

Center for Jury Studies. National Center for State Courts. The Center for Jury Studies is dedicated to facilitating the ability of these citizens to fulfill their role within the justice system and enhancing their confidence and satisfaction with jury service by helping judges and court staff improve jury management.

Civil Jury Trials in State and Federal Courts. (Summer 2007). Civil Action. Vol. 6 No. 1.

Recent research findings about the frequency of civil jury trials in state and federal courts and the procedures employed by judges and lawyers to select the jury and try the case.

Waters, Nicole L. Does Jury Size Matter? A Review of the Literature. (May 2003).

The debate is ongoing about the advantages and disadvantages of reducing jury size. The U.S. Supreme Court first addressed the issue of jury size thirty years ago.

Effective Use of Jurors. (2011). National Center for State Courts.

Measurement Number 8 of the CourTopics Trial Court Performance Measurements.

Jury Manager`s Manual. (1996). Office of the State Courts Administrator. Tallahassee, FL The Jury Managers' Manual is a complete guide to all elements of a trial court juror management system.
Jury Managers' Toolbox. National Center for State Courts and State Justice Institute. An online diagnostic tool designed to help state court administrators and jury managers evaluate and improve jury management operations and procedures.  The program will generate a variety of reports based on data which users input from their own jurisdictions.  This program is the "Turbotax" of jury management.  There is a PowerPoint presentation available on this resource.
Jury Sanctions: 2008 Report to the Legislature. (February 2009). The Judicial Council submitted this report to the Legislature on the impact of the California superior courts use of the sanctions procedures authorized under California Code of Civil Procedure on jurors who fail to appear after being summoned for jury service.
Jury Management. (2001).

Court Consulting Services helps courts with many jury management issues. Please contact the Court Consulting Services for more information.

Munsterman, G. Thomas. Jury System Management. (1996). 195 pages.

Manual provides methodology for courts to evaluate the management of their jury system. Twelve elements of a jury system have been defined, and most of these elements have been assigned a quantitative measure (or standard) based upon achievable and demonstrated results of efficient jury system administration.

Jury Systems Vendors. National Center for State Courts.

Jury Systems Vendors from the Court Technology Vendor List.

Rubio, Dawn, W. Larry Ventil, and Paula Hannaford. King County Superior Court Evaluation of the Jury Debriefing Program. (2000). Court Services Division.

An evaluation of King Co. Superior Court's "critical incident stress debriefing," which is offered to jurors at the end of a trial with graphic testimony or evidence or a high degree of media coverage.

Hannaford, Paula. Making the Case for Juror Privacy: A New Framework for Court Policies and Procedures. (June 2001).

Jurors across the country are beginning to demand that courts take steps to keep personal information that is provided during jury service confidential.

Munsterman, G. Thomas, and Linda Walker. One Trial/One Day Term of Jury Service. (August 1993). Court Services Division and Washington Project Office.

Study and implementation plan for King County Superior Court, Seattle, Washington. Under a one trial one day term of service, person reporting for jury service have completed their service after serving on one trial or if not selected after reporting for one day.

Donahue, Honorable Gary Preliminary Jury Instructions. (September 2005). Ninth National Court Technology Conference, Seattle, Washington Detailed preliminary Jury instructions relating to the duties of jurors from Division 55 Superior Court in Arizona.
Hannaford-Agor, Paula. Saving Money for Everyone: The Current Economic Crisis Is an Opportunity to Get Serious About Improving Juror Utilization. (2009). National Center for State Courts, Future Trends in State Courts 2009.

The current economic crisis provides an opportunity for courts to improve juror utilization, potentially saving tens of thousands of dollars per year in unnecessary expenses incurred for unused jurors and hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost income and lost productivity incurred by jurors, their employers, and their communities.

Rottman, David B., et al. State Court Organization, 2004. (2006). Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics Tables show state-by-state lists of qualifications, excusals, exemptions, etc.
Munsterman, G. Thomas. The Jury Bookshelf. (August 1995). Research Services.

Book reviews of three classic publications concerning juries.

Munsterman, Janice, G. Thomas Munsterman, Brian Lynch, and Steven Penrod. The Relationship of Juror Fees and Terms of Service to Jury System Performance. (March 1991). 183 pages. Washington Project Office.

Courts are under continuing pressure to reduce their expenditures. An obvious target for cost-cutting is juror fees as they usually represent the second largest item, after personnel, in court budgets.

Mize, Honorable Gregory (ret.), Paula Hannaford-Agor, and Nicole Waters. The State-of-the-States Survey of Jury Improvement Efforts: Compendium Report. (April 2007).

The State-of-the-States Survey of Jury Improvement Efforts provides the most comprehensive snapshot of contemporary jury operations and practices in state courts ever conducted.

Casey, Pamela, et al. Through the Eyes of the Juror: A Manual for Addressing Juror Stress. (September 1998).

Jurors confront numerous sources of stress at every stage of jury duty even in routine files. This manual addresses many areas of these stresses.

Paula L. Hannaford-Agor and Nicole L. Waters. Tripping Over Our Own Feet: Two Steps Are One Too Many in Jury Operations. . (2010). National Center for State Courts, Future Trends in State Courts 2010. Most state courts still use a two-step process to qualify and summon jurors.  But courts looking to expend less money and administrative effort may want to convert to a sone-step process.

Fair Cross Section

Jury Managers' Toolbox: A Primer on Fair Cross Section Jurisprudence. (2010). This resource is a brief description of current law on the constitutional requirement that jury's fairly represent the community.
Professor Cheryl Thomas. Are Juries Fair?. (2010). This research is from the United Kingdom and asks: How fair is the jury decision-making process? It explores a number of aspects of jury fairness for the first time in this country, and asks specifically:

 

Do all-White juries discriminate against minority defendants?

Do jurors racially stereotype defendants?

Do juries at certain courts rarely convict?

Do juries rarely convict on certain offences?

Do jurors understand legal directions?

Do jurors know what to do about improper conduct in the jury room?

Are jurors aware of media coverage of their cases?

How is the internet affecting jury trials?

Hung Juries

Paula L. Hannaford-Agor, J.D., et. al. Are Hung Juries a Problem?. (2002).

This report is an empirical picture of hung juries and was based on an objective for this 4-year study by the National Center for State Courts with funding by the National Institute of Justice.  It provides insights and answers to the question of whether hung juries are a significant problem at a national level.

Stephen P. Garvey, et. al First Votes in Criminal Trials. (2004). This report is an analysis of the voting behavior of over 3,000 jurors in felony cases tried in Los Angeles, Maricopa County, the District of Columbia, and the Bronx reveals that only in D.C. does a juror’s race appear to relate to how he or she votes. African-American jurors in D.C. appear more apt to vote not guilty on the jury’s first ballot in cases involving minority defendants charged with drug offenses. There was no evidence, however, that this effect survives into the jury’s final verdict.
Paula Hannaford-Agor, et al. Why do Hung Juries Hang. (2004).

This is an article from the NIJ Journal.  The National Center for State Courts examined deadlocked, or “hung,” juries to see what characteristics they share and how they might be avoided.

Notorious Trials

Paula L. Hannaford, et. al. Managing Notorious Trials. (1998). This update of A Manual for Managing Notorious Cases (1992) is "the most concise comprehensive introduction to handling a high-profile trial," says Hon. William Howard, the judge in the Susan Smith trial. This new edition reflects lessons learned from high-profile cases since 1992 in four broad topics: pretrial planning, how to deal with the media, jury considerations, and security. Appendices provide samples of guidelines and forms used by courts that have tried notorious cases.
Anne E. Skove. Post-Ring Developments. (2003). National Center for State Courts, Future Trends in State Courts 2003.

This document discusses how states have responded to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Ring v. Arizona requiring that juries decide the sentence phase in death penalty cases. Of particular concern has been the effect of the decision on death sentences imposed by judges in a handful of states before the Rind decision.

Antonio, Michael E. Stress and the Capital Jury: How Male and Female Jurors React to Serving on a Murder Trial. (2008). Justice System Journal, vol. 29, no. 3.

This essay presents analysis that extends the findings gathered by the Capital Jury Project showing that many jurors who served on capital murder trials experienced significant stress and suffered extreme emotional setbacks.

Paula L. Hannaford-Agor When All Eyes are Watching: Trial Characteristics and Practices in Notorious Trials. (2008). This article discusses the characteristics that are most often associated with those notorious trials and the trial practices most often employed by judges and lawyers in notorious trials.

Social Media and Juries

A Fair Trial: Jurors Use of Electronic Devices & the Internet. (2011). ABA Judicial Division National Conference of State Trial Judges.

This informative report describes the problems associated with jurors using electronic devices and the internet.  It also describes remedial solutions judges can utilize.

Judge Jacqueline Connor and Anne Endress Skove. Dial "M" for Misconduct: The Effect of Mass Media and Pop Culture on Juror Expectations. (2004). National Center for State Courts, Future Trends in State Courts 2004.

This article discusses the intersection of mass media, pop culture, and juror expectations.  It presents evidence on how shows such as Ally McBeal and Law and Order influence the expectations that people have of the judicial system.

Dunn, Meghan Jurors’ Use of Social Media During Trials and Deliberations: A Report to the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management. (2011).

In October of 2011, surveys were sent to federal judges asking them about their practices and experiences regarding jurors and social media.  The survey was sent to 952 judges and 508 responded, about 53%.  Of the group of judges that responded, only 30 “reported instances of detected social media use by jurors during trials or deliberations.”

Social Media and Trial by Jury Webinar. (2011). The "Social Media and Trial by Jury Webinar" was done on February 8, 2011.  You can watch a video of the event online.  The webinar is a discussion of practical problems and solutions to the use of social media by jurors.  A distinguished panel including the Honorable Gregory E. Mize, the Honorable Dennis M. Sweeney and Professor Caren Myers Morrison discussed issues and responded to participant questions. This is a unique and detailed discussion of this issue and it is worth the time to view.

Special Populations

Guidelines for Trials Involving Deaf Jurors Who Serve with the Assistance of Sign Language Interpreters. (February 2004). New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts. Trenton, New Jersey: Language Services Section, These guidelines have been prepared to assist judges when prospective jurors who have indicated that they require a sign language or oral interpreter in order to serve as a juror, whether that need is noted on the Juror Qualification Questionnaire or communicated in some other way to court personnel.
Dunlop, Burton D., and Marisa E. Collett. Jury Service Accessibility for Older Persons and Persons with Disabilities in Florida. (1999). Tallahassee: Supreme Court Commission on Fairness and Southeast Florida Center on Aging of Florida International University