Paula Hannaford-Agor
Gregory Hurley
Ingo Keilitz
Judge Gregory E. Mize (Ret.)
Nicole Waters
Best Practices in Jury System Management
Jury Managers' Toolbox
Center for Jury Studies
Jury System Management, Court Management Library Series
The State of the States Survey of Jury Improvement Efforts
The process of jury management should be simple: take some names from a list and summon those persons to serve as jurors. However, questions remain:
These are some of the important questions addressed by jury management.
The use of technology for jury system support is the most obvious use of technology in the courts. From executing simple selection methods and preparing the summons, to providing management information and allowing jurors to respond via the Internet, many technological advances enhance jury management.
Jury management is an important area for courts. The entire process, from compiling master lists to summoning potential jurors to debriefing jurors after trial, can be long and involved, fraught with constitutional and public-policy issues and complicated logistics. Defendants have a Sixth Amendment right to a jury of their peers. The jury pool (though not necessarily the selected jurors) must represent a cross-section of the community.
The National Center for State Courts’ Center for Jury Studies addresses jury issues from a number of angles, including offering courses and resources on managing juries day-to-day or in notorious trials, as well as research and state-by-state rules and practices.
Links to related online resources are listed below. Non-digitized publications may be borrowed from the NCSC Library; call numbers are provided.
Jury Systems Vendors from the Court Technology Vendor List.
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.
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.
Memo on jury exemptions in the fifty states.
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.
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.
Jurors across the country are beginning to demand that courts take steps to keep personal information that is provided during jury service confidential.
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.
An evaluation of the jury management system in Minnesota, specifically focusing on the financial hardships faced by jurors due to their service.
Book reviews of three classic publications concerning juries.
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.
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.
Jurors confront numerous sources of stress at every stage of jury duty even in routine files. This manual addresses many areas of these stresses.
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?
The results presented in this six page report are derived from a 2002 National Center for State Courts’ study covering 32 counties across 14 states and all federal circuit courts in two separate phases. This report summarizes information and findings from "Are Hung Juries a Problem?"
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.
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.
This informative report describes the problems associated with jurors using electronic devices and the internet. It also describes remedial solutions judges can utilize.
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.”
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.