TV, child care, and jurors

October 10, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Free child care. Free movies and wireless Internet. Time to shop during the day. These aren’t amenities law firms are giving employees to attract lawyers but are actually what some counties in the U.S. are doing to attract jurors.

No one likes receiving the jury summons in the mail. I received one earlier this year for Marion County, which required me to call a telephone number every evening to find out if my number had been selected. I got picked, showed up bright and early to the City-County Building and sat there for hours trying to pass the time with a book I brought. I saw a few magazines in the room, but beyond that, we prospective jurors were left to entertain and feed ourselves until we were called to serve on a jury or were dismissed.

Needless to say, it wasn’t an exciting morning.

Counties across the country recognize this, and some are providing free child care, free wireless Internet access, and TVs to play DVDs, according to a National Law Journal article. In fact, one county in Michigan gives its jurors a beeper so they are free to leave the building, shop, and eat, as long as they stay within a certain radius. If the beeper rings, you’ve been called back to serve.

But in this economy, where are counties and states getting the money to install televisions in juror waiting rooms, purchase beepers, and pay for day care for prospective jurors? I wonder if these courts have done a cost-benefit analysis and found the up-front investment for these items overall will save the courts money because trials will be less likely to be postponed and juror pools will be larger. I also have read some courts are considering cutting juror pay as a cost-saving method.

I’d like to see a way to bring in more jurors and increase the juror pool, and make the jurors not feel like being called to serve is a punishment or drag on the day. But will these types of amenities be enough to attract more jurors, or would cold, hard cash do the trick?
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT