BEYOND FAILURE TO APPEAR NOTICES: A REEXAMINATION OF JUROR ATTITUDES IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AND AN EXAMINATION OF OTHER TECHNIQUES TO ADDRESS FAILURE TO APPEAR PATTERNS Institute for Court Management Court Executive Development Program 2007-2008 Phase III Project May 2008 Tracy L. Smedley Deputy Court Administrator / Jury Supervisor Sixteenth Judicial Circuit Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................... 2 TABLE OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ 3 TABLE OF APPENDICES ................................................................................................ 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................ 5 ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ 6 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 8 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................. 12 Review of Literature on Management of Juror Non-Respondents ........................................................... 12 Review of Prior Study on Juror Non-Respondents in Jackson County .................................................... 16 METHODS ....................................................................................................................... 20 Impact of Literature Review on Project Plan / Methods Selected ............................................................ 21 Interviews with Jury Managers or Jury Commissioners ........................................................................... 23 On-Site Surveys of Individuals Appearing for Jury Service .................................................................... 25 FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................ 34 Jury Manager Interviews .......................................................................................................................... 34 Juror Surveys ............................................................................................................................................ 48 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................... 66 Enhanced Compliance Program ............................................................................................................... 67 Limited Enforcement Efforts .................................................................................................................... 69 Additional Efforts to Provide Information / Increase Public Awareness.................................................. 71 Ongoing Efforts to Lessen Jury Burdens / Improve Jury Experience ...................................................... 72 REFERENCES / BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................. 73 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 75 2 TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1 ............................................................................................................................. 33 Figure 2 ............................................................................................................................. 47 Figure 3 ............................................................................................................................. 49 Figure 4 ............................................................................................................................. 49 Figure 5 ............................................................................................................................. 49 Figure 6 ............................................................................................................................. 49 Figure 7 ............................................................................................................................. 50 Figure 8 ............................................................................................................................. 52 Figure 9 ............................................................................................................................. 52 Figure 10 ........................................................................................................................... 53 Figure 11 ........................................................................................................................... 53 Figure 12 ........................................................................................................................... 56 Figure 13 ........................................................................................................................... 56 Figure 14 ........................................................................................................................... 57 Figure 15 ........................................................................................................................... 57 Figure 16 ........................................................................................................................... 58 Figure 17 ........................................................................................................................... 58 Figure 18 ........................................................................................................................... 59 Figure 19 ........................................................................................................................... 59 Figure 20 ........................................................................................................................... 63 Figure 21 ........................................................................................................................... 63 Figure 22 ........................................................................................................................... 64 Figure 23 ........................................................................................................................... 64 Figure 24 ........................................................................................................................... 65 3 TABLE OF APPENDICES Appendix A—Normal FTA Letter Utilized in the Jackson County Circuit Court Appendix B—Modified FTA Letter Utilized in the Jackson County Circuit Court for Jurors Age 65 or Older Appendix C—Interview Script Utilized with Other Jury Managers Appendix D—Survey Form Utilized for On-Site Surveys of Individuals Appearing for Jury Service in the Jackson County Circuit Court Appendix E—Summons Form Utilized in the Jackson County Circuit Court Appendix F—Summons Form Utilized in the San Joaquin County, California Superior Court Appendix G—Summons Form Utilized in the Lake County, Illinois Circuit Court Appendix H—Summons Form Utilized in the Essex Vicinage, New Jersey Superior Court Appendix I—Summons Form Utilized in the State of Massachusetts 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to acknowledge the following people for their assistance. Without them, this project simply would not have been possible: Teresa York, Court Administrator, for her encouragement to me to enter and complete the Court Executive Development Program and for assuring that the Jackson County Circuit Court provided the financial assistance for me to do so. Mary Cullom for her tireless assistance in critiquing my project plan, the data collection instruments, and the report itself; for running (and re-running) reports to allow me to better understand the data; for creating charts and graphs to present the data in a more understandable fashion; and for keeping me on track by assuring that I met each of the project deadlines by constantly inquiring about “our” deadlines. Heather Wilkerson and Yvonne Fields for their assistance in critiquing, administering, collecting, and entering the data from the on-site juror surveys; and for assuring that the normal day-to-day operations of the Jury Room continued despite my preoccupation with this project. Paula Hannaford, my project advisor, for her guidance and invaluable assistance generally, and specifically for helping me focus my project while I was in Williamsburg, for reeling me in when I tried to undertake a much more complicated survey process than was necessary, for giving me an appropriate kick in the pants to move me from the analysis to the writing phase by telling me to “quit swimming in the data and start writing”, and for critiquing my overly complex writing style by suggesting I shorten every sentence more than four lines in length (except this one). 5 ABSTRACT This project on juror non-appearances was undertaken in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, a general jurisdiction state trial court serving a single county in Missouri. The Court is a large urban court, but it is located in a state where there are only two other circuits located in large urban areas. The issue of juror non-appearances is critical not only to the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri but to courts generally because it impacts a court’s ability to assure the integrity of its jury selection processes, which are in turn critical to assuring the key constitutional right of trial by jury. The project took a two-fold approach to studying the issue of juror non-appearances. The first focus of the project was on the approach taken and range of practices used by other large urban courts in the United States that have implemented and are continuing to use Order to Show Cause dockets as a technique to address juror failures to appear. The second focus of the project was on the attitudes of jurors summoned to the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri. The purpose of the project was to determine if the Court could and/or should take additional steps, beyond its current practice of sending failure to appear notices to address juror non-appearances. The research methods utilized to study this issue included a review of the relevant literature on management of juror non-respondents, including a review of a prior study completed in the Jackson County Circuit Court. The methods also included a limited number of telephone interviews of jury managers in other large urban courts. The other 6 courts selected were outside the State of Missouri and were identified, in part, based upon data from the recently completed State-of-the-States Survey of Jury Improvement Efforts published by the Center for Jury Studies within the National Center for State Courts. Finally, the primary research method used was an on-site survey of jurors serving in the Jackson County Circuit Court in September and October 2007 about their attitudes toward jury service generally, and specifically toward jury service with the Court. Through the interviews of jury managers from other jurisdictions we were able to document a significant range of practices related to both Order to Show Cause dockets as well as to other techniques designed to address juror failures to appear. Through the results of the juror survey conducted in 2007 and the comparison to the report from the prior juror survey completed in Jackson County, we were able to reaffirm that jurors still hold a strong belief in the value of jury service as well a strong view of the importance of the role of the citizen juror. However, these strong views did not necessarily translate into corresponding beliefs that everyone should serve. In addition, as expected, the survey revealed that the Court’s jurors have concerns about the burdens placed on them. Given these results, the overall recommendation arising from this project is that while the Jackson County Circuit Court should consider enhancing its compliance program for jurors who fail to appear, it should undertake what would be categorized as true enforcement efforts only in a very limited sense. Instead, the Court’s focus should continue to be on education and on other means of improving juror response rates. 7 INTRODUCTION This project was intended to focus on whether there has been a change in the attitudes of jurors summoned to the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri. Juror attitudes in Jackson County were last studied by Teresa York1, the Court’s former Assistant Court Administrator/Jury Supervisor, for her Institute for Court Management (ICM) Court Executive Development Program (CEDP) Phase III Project, which was published in May 2001. A further focus of the project was on studying the approach taken, and on documenting the range of practices used, by other large urban courts in the United States, which have implemented and are continuing to use Order to Show Cause (OSC) dockets as a technique to address jurors who fail to appear. The purpose of the project was to determine if the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri could and/or should take additional steps, beyond its current practice of sending failure to appear (FTA) notices. The Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, also known as the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, is a general jurisdiction state trial court serving a single county. It has a total of 36 judicial officers, consisting of 19 circuit judges, nine associate circuit judges, and eight commissioners. Jackson County is comprised of 600 square miles, has a population of almost 665,000, and encompasses one of two major metropolitan areas in the State of Missouri. Sixteen different municipalities are located at least partially within the county. Jury tried cases are heard in two courthouses within Jackson County, one in Kansas City, the other in Independence. Jurors are summoned from the entirety of the county to both 1 Teresa York’s ICM CEDP Project was published under her former name, Teresa Steelman, and while I have used her current name in the body of the text of this paper, citations to her report are under Steelman. 8 locations. A larger number of jurors are needed at and summoned to the Kansas City courthouse because 12 of the 16 circuit judges regularly assigned to hear jury tried cases sit in Kansas City. Four others sit in Independence. The remaining three circuit judges serve in administrative or other capacities as the Presiding Judge, Administrative Judge for the Family Court, and Criminal “A” Judge. Petit jurors are summoned by the Jackson County Circuit Court 49 of the 52 weeks each year using a one-step summoning process with an average of 360 jurors reporting each week.2 Jurors are given a date certain on which to report, and are instructed to call in after 5:00 p.m. the night before to determine whether they are still required to report. The Court uses a one day/one trial system. As a result, except for lengthier cases in which jury selection takes more than one day, most prospective jurors know by the conclusion of that first day whether they have been selected to serve as a juror or alternate in a particular case. The majority of the roughly 195 cases for which juries are empaneled each year in the Court3 are still tried in under one week. Jurors are paid the state statutory rate of $6.00 per day, are reimbursed for mileage at the rate of 7 cents per mile, and are provided validated parking at the Kansas City courthouse location only from the point at which they are actually sworn as a juror or alternate for a case.4 Currently the Jackson County Circuit Court runs an FTA report for each day for which jurors are summoned. The report captures all jurors who were summoned and who failed 2 Weekly average for calendar year 2007. 3 Five year average for calendar years 2003-2007. 4 Parking for jurors at the Independence location is available free of charge in a county-owned lot across from the courthouse. 9 to appear on their designated date, except those who previously established that they were ineligible to serve, those who were postponed or excused, and those whose summonses were returned by the post office as undeliverable. As a result the report includes both jurors from whom juror qualifications forms and/or other correspondence have been received (responded) and those from whom no communication has been received (non- responded). Although a report is run for each day jurors are required to report, FTA notices are not sent out until the next month. This delay is built into the process to give jurors who missed their dates because they simply forgot, received their summons late, or are working to provide documentation to establish a basis for excuse an opportunity to cure without any further action by the Court. At the beginning of each month, the Court generates FTA notices for any jurors who remain in FTA status from the previous month. The FTA notices, which give each juror a choice of two additional dates5 on which to report, complete their jury service, and cure their FTA status, are sent via regular mail. The designated dates are usually in the month following the month the FTA notice is sent. Both the delay in sending the FTA notices in the first instance and the selection of the dates in the following month are designed to maximize response from FTA jurors. Timing the FTA letters in this manner generally results in a greater number of responses establishing new service dates for individuals who previously failed to appear. Because the Court’s ultimate goal is to get jurors to 5 The additional dates provided normally fall on the first business day of the week. Holiday periods as well as other weeks where fewer jurors are generally needed (such as weeks when the Court’s judges will be at judicial conferences or colleges) are avoided so there is less chance that jurors will be cancelled on a date FTA jurors have been directed to report. 10