"Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Center for State Courts or the funding agency." COPYRIGHT 1986 NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS WILLIAM S. HEIN 6 CO., INC. IIIIIAL The quality of this Microfiche is equivalent to the condition of the original work. WILLIAM 5. HEIN & CO., INC. I Standakds Relating to Juror Use and Management Tentative Draft .- . -7-. ,:July, 1982 American Bar Association Judicial Administration Division Committee on Jury Standards -- American Bar Association Judicial Administration Division Committee on Jury Standards Walter 3. Kane, Chairperson Honorable Janice L. Gradwohl Honorable James A. Noe Municipal Court of Lincoln- King County Superior Court Lancaster County Seatt 1e, Washing ton Lincoln, Nebraska NATIOWL CONFERENCE OF STATE TRIAL JUDGES CONFEREhCE UF SPECIAL COURT JUDGES Honorable Norma L. Shapiro John h. ljreacen US. District Court Deputy Director' for Programs Ph i1 adel phi a, Pennsylvani a National Center for State Courts NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF FEDERAL TRIAL JUDGES hi11 i amsburg , Virgini a LAWYERS' CONFERENCE Honorable Roger G. Strand Associate Presiding Judge halter 3. Kane Maricopa County -Superior Court State Court Admini strator Phoenix, Arizona Providence, Rhode Island NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE TRIAL JUDGES LAWYERS' CONFERENCE Honorable Joseph R. Weisberger Edward 8. McConnelS Supreme Court of Rhode and Executive Director Providence, Rhode IslandIs? National Center for State Courts APPELLATE JUDGES' CONFERENCE Wif 1i amsburg , Virginia LAWYERS' CONFERENCE Representatives of Other Participating Organizations Donald Cullen Hank P. Rodgers llistrict Administrator Executive Officer Aus t in kinneso t a Ventura County Superior Court NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR COURT Ventura, California ADFiINISTRATION NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRIAL COURT ADHI NISTRATORS James 0. Montgomery kontgomery and Holland A1 len L. Tapley Chicago, Illinois State Court Administrator NATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION Montgomery, abama -- A1 CONFERENCE OF STATE COURT ADMINISTRATORS Honorable Roger G. Strand Maricopa County Superior Court Phoenix , Arizona NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF METROPOLITAN COURTS i National Center for State Courts Jury Standards Project Staff Linda R. Caviness, Project Director Senior Staff Associate C. Diane Barrow Richard Van Duitend Project Secretary Senior Staff Attorney Charlotte A. Carter Christina B. Yaw Staff Attorney Staff Associate The National Center project staff wish to express their appreciation to the Center for Jury Studies and to the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Jury Incentive Program ,sites for their assistance and practical suggestions during the preparation of this document. Special thanks to Susan Laniewski for her assistance in preparing the final draft . of this document. ."- i: : -- Uhis project was supported by Grant Number 80-PG-AX-0033, awarded by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, U.S. Department of Justice, under the Omnibus Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, aS amended. The opinions, recommendations, and determinations contained herein are thcse of the Jury Standards Task Force ana the Comnittee on Jury Standards of the American Bar Association, Judicial Administration Divisior? and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice, the National Center for State - Courts or the American Bar Association. '. ii Preface This dOCUtTient, dealing with standards-for jury use and management in the state courts, is a tentative draft for review and approval by the judicial ana administrative organizations that have been involved in the drafting process. These standards address issues of the management and use of petit juries as opposed to those of grand juries. The formulation of this document has been a cooperative effort of many court organizations. Judges and court administrators representing various national organizations including several Conferences of the berican aar Association, Judicial Administration Division have met regularly over the past eighteen months to debate jury management issues and to develop the standards set forth here. The effort has necessarily been one of conflict and compromise. The team work and commitment of the ten participatiny-oryanitations working together to develop realistfc goals in this area of judicial administration should not only be comniendea, but also considerea a model effort. /- The National Center for State Courts was awarded a grant from the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration to coordinate the standards development effort and to provide staff support. A Jury Standards Task force was farmea to set policy for the scope and conduct of the project; to decide the content and language of the standards; to review and approve commentary to accompany the standards; and to develop a plan for their dissemination and imp1 ementati on. Organizations represented on the original lvational Center Jury Standards Task Force include: the Conference of State Court Administrators, the National Association for Trial Court Administrators, the Flational Association for Court Administration, the National Conference of State Trial Judges, the Ivational Conference of Special Court Judges, and the National Conference of Metropolitan Courts. Organizations added during the course of the task force's work incluae the National Bar Associatim, the luational Conference of Federal Trial Judges, the Lawyers' Conference and the Appel 1 ate Judges ' Conference. At the first meeting of the task force, the representatives of the JAU Conferences suggested that the impact of the standards being aeveloped would be increased if they had the endorsement of the American bar Association. To implement this suggestion, Judge Lawrence S. Margolis, JAD Chairman, appointed a special committee of the JAD Council to work in conjunction with the task force in drafting the standards with the thought that the standards, when developed, could be submitted to the JUU for csnsideration, and, if approved by it, to the ABA House of Delegates for adoption. iii The JAD Committee on Jury Standards is composed of Judge Norma L. Shapiro (National Conference of Federal Trial Judges), Justice Joseph R. Wei sberger (Appell ate Juoges Conference) , Judge James A. Noe and Judge Roger G. Strand (National Conference of State Trial Judges), Judge Janice L. Gradwohl (National Conference of Special Court Judges), and John M. Greacen, Edward B. lvlcConnel1 , and Walter 3. Kane (Lawyer's Conference). Since its appointment in the fall of 1980, the JA3 Jury Committee has met jointly with the task force every two months and benefited from the participation of professionals from court management organizations who work every day with the jilry system and know personally the practical problems that arise. Task force members representing court management organizations incluae A1 len Tapley (Conference of State Court Administrators) , Hank T. Rodgers (National Association of Trial Court Administrators) , Donald Cul len (National Association for Court Administration) , and James D. Montgomery (National Bar Association). -7 A preliminary draft of these standards was given wide circulation among the organizations represented on the task force and JAD Jury Committee as well as by jury managers and other interested groups concerned with judicial administration. Suggestions and criticisms were solicited and given careful consideration. Many have been incorporated in this tentative draft. The JAD Committee and National Center Task Force express appreciation to a1 1 who reviewed the preliminary draft. This step in the standards development process is the review and approval of the tentative draft by the organizations participating in the development effort. With their approval and that of the Judicial Administration Division, it is anticipated that the standards will be presented to the American Bar Association, House of Delegates for adoption in January, 1983. Wa:ter J. Kane .. Table of Contents IhTROUUCTION ............................. 1 t$LACK LETTER STANDARDS ........................ 4 STARDUDS AND CONMENTARY .. Part A: Standards Relating to Selection of Prospective Jurors Introduction ................. ......14 . Standara 1: OPPORTUNITY FOR SERVICE ............ 16 Commentary .. ......... ......16 Suggested Steps for Implementation .......17 Related Standards ............... 17 Footnotes ................... 18 Bibliography ..................20 Standard 2: JURY JOURCE LIST ................23 \ Commentary ...................23 Suggested Steps for Implementation .......27 Helatea Standards ............... 2% Footnotes ................... 2% Bibliography ..................30 Standara 3: RANDOM SELECTION PROCEDURES .......... 36 Commentary ................... 36 Suggested Steps for Implementation .......38 Relatea Standards ............... 38 Footnotes ................... 39 Bibliography ...................41 Standara 4: ELIGIBILITY FOR JURY SERVICE ..........47 Commentary ...................47 Suggested Steps for Implementation .......50 Related Standards ............... 50 Footnotes ................... 50 Bibliography ..... .......0.. .e m53 Standard 5: TERM OF AND AVAILABILITY FOR SERVICE ......55 Conmentary ...................55 Suggested Steps for Implementation .......57 Related Standards ............... 58 Footnotes ................... 58 Bibliography ..................59 Standard 6: EXEMPTION. EXCUSE. AND DEFERRAL ........ 60