The changing face of Jury duty: The sad subject of eye-rolling and celebrity scandal rather than a revered foundation of our.
In the 1830s, French traveler Alexis de Tocqueville praised America's use of the jury in his books on "Democracy in America." He observed, "By obliging men to turn their attention to other affairs than their own, it rubs off that private selfishness which is the rust of society. [The jury] invests each citizen with a kind of magistracy, it makes them all feel the duties which they are bound to discharge toward society and the part which they take in its government."
Yet in the 21st Century, the "anchor" is giving way, and the feeling of "magistracy" is gone. Jury duty, rather than a revered foundation of our democracy, is the sad subject of eye-rolling and celebrity scandal.
In July 2003, television star Ashton Kutcher reached a career low with his performance at jury duty. Upset that he was missing a day of work, Mr. Kutcher later boasted that he answered jury selection questions in such a way as to ensure his excusal from jury service in a car-accident case. A few months later, Dustin Hoffman, star of the film "Runaway Jury," admitted that he has been called for jury duty but never went to court because he was always working. Carmen Electra had to be excused from a jury because of the commotion she caused, but at least she was willing to serve. Woody Allen reportedly appeared for jury duty but told the judge that he does not believe in the legal system.
Poor attitudes about jury duty undermine the great efforts of the many people who have had to fight to even be considered for jury service. The selection process is now so random that a New York town justice recently was summoned to appear for jury duty in his own court…before himself. However, justice has not always been so blind.
Not long ago, women and minorities struggled to be equally included as qualified jurors. In 1946, the United States Supreme Court declared that the intentional exclusion of women from juries "deprives the jury system of the broad base it was designed by Congress to have in our democratic society" (Ballard v. United States, 329 U.S. 187). However, the case addressed only federal jury selection, and women were not assured of inclusion in state jury pools.
Indeed, in 1961, the Court decided that state laws which effectively excluded women from jury pools were not discriminatory (Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57). Finally, in 1975, the Court reversed that position. In Taylor v. Louisiana (419 U.S. 522), the Court stated that jury pools without women violate a criminal defendant's right to be tried before a true cross-section of the community. "If it was ever the case that women were unqualified to sit on juries or were so situated that none of them should be required to perform jury service, that time has long since passed."
Minorities faced similar challenges. In 1968, the Federal Jury Selection Act was passed to increase the diversity of the pools from which federal juries are drawn, and many states followed suit. However, it was not until 1986, after Batson v. Kentucky (476 U.S. 79), that peremptory challenges could not be used to strike individuals from the jury on a discriminatory basis. These strides forward are not so far removed in America's history as to provide the luxury of viewing jury duty as flippantly as we do.
At a time when jury duty has fallen out of vogue, many leaders still strive to promote the intangible, invaluable benefits of our jury system. New York's Chief Judge has long made jury-related issues one of her top priorities. In fact, she has reported for jury duty. Other leaders and lawyers who have completed or reported for jury service speak positively about the experience. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has served as a jury foreperson. Former President Bill Clinton was willing to perform jury service, although the judge excused him for fear of courtroom disruption.
Since the days when Jefferson championed juries and de Tocqueville attributed Americans' "practical intelligence and political good sense" to our use of them, our jury system certainly has changed. However, the precious connection between juries and democracy has not.
The best thing about LawCrossing is that you can upload your resume and also have the option to apply online. Allison
Facts
LawCrossing Fact #38: Users have the option to receive LawCrossing’s weekly newswires, which contain industry-specific articles and news.
Facebook comments:
Enjoyed reading this article? Click here to sign up for News Wire, our weekly newsletter, and you'll receive articles just like this right in your inbox.
Enter your email address and start getting breaking law firm and legal news right now!
total jobs
136,190
New Legal Jobs in Last 7 Days
11,622
post your resume
Make your resume viewable to thousands of employers.
