The Practice Corner:
The Cost of Jury Service to the Juror

by Daniel DeWoskin
Trial Attorney
www.atlantatrial.com

CNN recently ran a story on how the economy is having a severe impact on many of those who are called to serve as jurors (www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/17/jury.duty.recession/index.html?hpt=C1). In the best of economic times, even those among us who can best afford to sacrifice time at work to engage in our noble civic duties might cringe at the summonses in our mailboxes. However, what this article makes clear is that today, perhaps more so than ever before, the toll taken by this sacrifice on the jurors can be devastating.

In every trial I have participated in, I have encountered jurors who are reluctant to serve because of the hardship their service would wreak on themselves, their families, and their jobs. Some of these hardships are very real, while many others may only appear to be severe to the individuals proclaiming them. In reality the juror who is unable to locate a babysitter or who cannot afford to pay a babysitter is in the same tight spot as that of the juror who is getting married the next day. Our distinguished judges each have their own preferred methods of evaluating the hardships and needs of jurors, and determining which of those claims of hardship rise to the level for which jury service may be excused.

Jury duty is never convenient. If I am wrong in saying so, it is because I have not yet met a juror, be it a CEO of a Fortune 500 company or a line cook, who does not value her time such that her absence from her daily responsibilities would not be catastrophic for the universe. Although I am making light of this observation, I have tremendous respect for those who are called to serve as jurors and serve faithfully. At the end of the day, justice depends on the jury’s careful, attentive deliberation. I do not intend to make light of the sacrifice a jury gives to hear cases, from the most serious to what some may consider the most trivial.

Experience has also taught me to be just as wary of the person who anxiously wants to be on a jury as those who shout out that jury service is a waste of time. The experience of jury service should ideally leave each juror with the sense that they had a direct and real impact on the outcome of a case, and that justice was accomplished with their verdict. It is nothing short of amazing that our justice system functions by the cooperative and responsible members of our community who report, however reluctantly, to serve as jurors.

The current state of the economy does cause concern that the service required of many of our jurors amounts to more than a missed budget meeting or sales call, and that jury service could ultimately make it difficult for some to keep lights on and rent paid. Yet, if most of us were to scour our caseload and ask ourselves which case file is not important enough to ask for a jury’s consideration, we would not likely find such a case.

Like any trial lawyer, I meet with many people about potential representation. I turn away far more cases than I take on, so that my time and my practice are managed effectively. My decisions may be based upon economic factors, the principles of my practice philosophy, or concerns about the sort of dynamic that exists between myself and the potential client. What I am left with is a stack of files, each of which is extremely important to the client, and thus is important to me. In years past I have made the mistake of taking on cases for which I was ambivalent about either the client or the case. I applied myself in those cases as I would any other matter, but the process was exhausting and the cost not worth what I took from the experience.

Jury trials are not the forum for ambivalence. Ambivalence on the part of the advocate, the judge, and the jurors is an impediment to justice and a disservice to us all. Given the economic woes of many who now serve as jurors, any ambivalence is downright insulting. Among the many obligations we have in our representation is to convey the vital need that jury service contributes to our community. We do not just do this by thanking the jury after a trial or in closing arguments, but by respecting our clients and cases with diligent preparation and expeditious use of jurors’ time.

The fact that this economy has substantially increased the cost of jury service to the juror leaves me uneasy. I am aware of the practical limitations that make any increase in the compensation for jurors unlikely and impractical because of budget concerns for state and local governments. Furthermore, I have always been apprehensive in my trials about those jurors who claimed their service would cause a hardship, but were unable to persuade the court that they should be excused. There is always some anxiety in these situations that such jurors may be distracted, or perhaps even antagonized by the court’s determination. In the worst examples, such a juror might seek to punish a party, lawyer, or other jurors by obstinate and unreasonable participation in the process.

There is no perfect solution that will alleviate the challenges that jury service has for our jurors. In a good economy or in a bad economy, justice is not expendable. The right to trial by jury is just that, a right. It is not a luxury, but the most fundamental foundation for our system of justice. As we see how this economy impacts jurors, all that we can and must do as lawyers is remain acutely aware of their sacrifice, and impress upon them at each opportunity how momentous their role is in our society, day in and day out.