Since the 17th century, Americans have participated in jury service, a tradition introduced by the Pilgrims, which has evolved over time. Although jury duty is now obligatory, defendants no longer possess the privilege of selecting their fellow citizens who will decide their legal fate. Serving on a jury is aptly named a “duty” because summoned individuals are required to appear, even though the actual percentage of those who serve from the summonses is less than 5%. Those who do receive a jury summons and serve often find it challenging to avoid this responsibility, although some attempt to do so.
To gain insights into the impact of jury duty on Americans, we conducted a survey involving 1,184 individuals who had been summoned or served. This survey aims to uncover sentiments toward jury duty, whether political affiliations influence biases and perspectives, and the post-trial stress experienced by jurors.
How Do Americans Perceive Jury Duty?
One effective approach to engaging the populace in governmental matters is by mandating certain civic activities, such as voting and jury duty. According to our research, a notable 60.2% of Americans support the idea of compulsory jury duty for all citizens. Among those who disagreed with this notion, Independents (44.9%) exhibited the strongest aversion to the concept of mandatory jury duty.
Perception of Jury Duty
In recent times, activists have been vocal in their calls for a more equitable justice system, particularly when a person of color’s fate hangs in the balance of a 12-member jury. Nevertheless, the majority of participants expressed confidence in the fairness of the jury system when determining the outcomes of criminal trials. Fewer than 11% of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans held a contrary opinion. When comparing trial by jury to trial by judge, the sentiment was almost evenly divided, with 54.8% showing a preference for a trial by jury.
Before individuals are chosen to serve on a jury, they must undergo a screening process to assess their suitability. Most respondents in our study appear to be law-abiding citizens who are deserving of this honor. Surprisingly, over 80% of those surveyed would even go against their personal moral beliefs to vote in alignment with the law, demonstrating a strong commitment to the legal process.
Regarding evading jury duty through dishonest means, our study revealed that nearly 10% of people resorted to lying. Among those who fabricated excuses, 8.4% did so out of a belief that their reason would not be deemed legitimate by a judge. However, it’s worth noting that needing sleep is not considered a valid excuse to miss jury duty, as highlighted by a Florida case in which a 21-year-old man received a penalty of 10 days in jail, a fine, and 150 hours of community service for oversleeping and missing a day of jury service.
What types of falsehoods do individuals resort to when avoiding jury duty? The most common lie told by those summoned is, “I have a bias that would impact the case,” accounting for 31% of responses. Following closely behind are medical issues at 24.1%, and travel plans at 17.2%. Understanding why people choose to lie provides valuable insights. It becomes clear that jury duty doesn’t offer significant financial incentives, with 48.2% citing financial inconvenience as the primary reason for attempting to evade service.
Our investigation uncovered other legitimate concerns as well. For instance, 19.3% feared potential repercussions from their employer, 15.7% lacked access to childcare for the trial’s duration, and 2.4% faced religious responsibilities that interfered with serving as a juror.
Personal biases play a significant role in the decision-making of jurors. Our study revealed that 29% of jurors formed initial judgments about the plaintiff and defendant based on their first appearances. This highlights the importance of first impressions in the context of jury proceedings.
When we examined how the age of a juror impacts their trial processing, intriguing trends emerged. Individuals in their 20s reached a verdict after observing just 61% of the case, demonstrating a relatively swift decision-making approach. In contrast, those aged 50 and older exhibited greater patience, waiting until they had absorbed 80% of the trial before forming a conclusion. Additionally, our findings suggest that the older a person is, the more likely they are to comprehend the presented information. Jurors in their 20s reported understanding less than three-quarters of the trial, whereas participants aged 50 and older claimed an impressive 93% level of understanding.
The question of whether the jury system harbors biases is a topic reminiscent of Harper Lee’s “To Kill a Mockingbird,” a piece of literature that raises concerns about the impartiality of a system reliant on human judgment. While clear biases were evident in Lee’s fictional 1930s town, identifying such biases in real-life scenarios is not always straightforward.
Inquiring about the occurrence of discriminatory thoughts during the trial, our survey revealed that 56.6% of Democrats responded affirmatively, compared to 39.7% of Republicans. The process of recognizing one’s own biases is undoubtedly challenging; could it be that Democrats exhibit greater awareness of bias or a greater willingness to acknowledge it than their Republican counterparts?
What Transpires for Jurors After Their Service?
While some trials conclude swiftly, others are arduous and extend over several months. Regardless of the trial’s nature, jurors bear the responsibility of thoroughly digesting an extensive body of evidence to facilitate the formulation of a fair judgment. This task places a significant burden on them.
The burden of passing judgment on someone’s actions can weigh heavily on some individuals even after the fact. Our research revealed that 26% of jurors grappled with negative emotions following their duty, with those who served on criminal trial juries being 7% more likely to experience such feelings. Among the range of negative emotions encountered by jurors in our study, anxiety emerged as the most prevalent, with nearly 50% reporting high levels of anxiety. Other emotions included disappointment, sadness, guilt, anger, fear, and shame. Strikingly, these negative emotions linked to jury duty persisted for an average of two years.
While the trial by jury system in the United States is not flawless, our findings highlight some imperfections: individuals lying to avoid serving when summoned, and jurors acknowledging feelings of bias during the trial. Despite these issues, most Americans take their civic duty seriously, with a significant number advocating for mandatory jury service. It’s worth noting that contributing to American society takes various forms, with jury duty being just one way. Serving as a bar-certified lawyer is another crucial path. BarPrepHero aids law students in preparing for the bar examination, offering a comprehensive review that covers the MBE, MEE, and MPT to ensure thorough preparation for the two-day test.
Methodology and Limitations:
To gather insights into opinions and thoughts about jury duty, we surveyed 1,184 American citizens. We further questioned respondents who had been summoned and/or served jury duty regarding their experiences. Demographically, 51.9% of our respondents identified as female, 47.8% as male, and the remaining 0.3% identified as pansexual, nonbinary, or female-to-male transgender. The average age of respondents was 40, with a standard deviation of 12.7 year.
See the original article by John Keller.
Confessions of a Juror: How Jury Duty Impacts Americans By John Keller, Legal Advisor, U.S. Lawdesk LLC, CEO