ILNews

Indiana courts contemplate response to potential juror apathy

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Kelly Scanlan can’t understand why people don’t want to serve on juries or why some don’t even respond to questionnaires and show up when called.

After all, the Indianapolis attorney has served as a juror twice in her life and the second experience was so memorable it inspired her to change careers and enter the legal profession. Scanlan’s story is one that echoes the experience of what many of those who’ve served on juries tell judges: serving on a jury was different and much more positive than what they’d expected and they were glad for the opportunity.

scanlan-kelly-mug Scanlan

But more often, that positive post-jury service message isn’t resonating in the public arena, and Indiana courts are seeing an increasing number of unanswered juror questionnaires and no-shows from those called to do their civic duty. Some judges are pushing back, cracking down on how they handle those individuals and turning to swift punishments even as the state judiciary and legal community work to remind Hoosiers about the importance of jury service.

“There are frustrations out there when people just don’t do the one thing they are obligated to do as U.S. citizens,” said St. Joseph Superior Judge Michael Scopelitis, who’s been on the bench for 11 years and has observed the rise in non-responses from those summonsed. “It got to the point here when I decided that I needed to do something about this.”

Judge Scopelitis said, on average, about 18 percent of people ignore the jury questionnaires, but last fall he saw that number rise even higher. One-page questionnaires are mailed to approximately 4,000 county residents six times per year and must be returned within 10 days, but the judge observed that less than half had been returned. In October, the judge ordered 711 people to come to court and explain why they didn’t return those questionnaires as required.

Those individuals faced jail time, and earlier this year most came to a hearing held over a two-day period. Residents checked in, filled out the questionnaire handed to them when they entered, and listened to the judge speak about the importance of jury duty. He recalls discussing the Magna Carta and the provision for the accused to be tried by a jury of his or her peers, and he said he ran through a list of the most common excuses he hears from people trying to get out of jury service. Some apologized, he said.

However, more than 100 still didn’t show up, and the judge issued body attachments requiring police to take those individuals to jail for violating the court order. Judge Scopelitis asked police to make the arrests a priority, and that resulted in roughly a quarter of those non-responders coming to the court to fill out the questionnaire. Half remain outstanding and are enforced by the sheriffs gradually, the judge said.

“This is a disturbing trend, and I really was trying to send a message that this is something you have to do no matter how you feel about it,” Judge Scopelitis said. “We just can’t afford as a legal system for people to disregard their civic duty.”

gregg Knox Circuit Judge Sherry Gregg Gilmore was one of 11 judges and legal community members who recently participated in a public awareness campaign on the importance of jury service. (Submitted photo)

The Indiana Supreme Court and Division of State Court Administration do not have a comprehensive database tracking juror response and no-shows statewide. Only 50 counties participate in the Jury Management System and not every county records the “no-show” on the application for those individuals who don’t appear or answer the questionnaire.

But anecdotally, judges say they are seeing the problem more often, and with smaller budgets and fewer resources the courts aren’t able to rely on communications and follow-ups as they could years ago. St. Joseph Superior Judge Roland Chamblee said before last year, he’d never been unable to seat a jury, but that happened four times in 2010. That surprised the trial judge and led to a trial being reset and jurors being sent home.

In Lake County, an expanded communications process put in place five years ago has helped decrease the amount of non-compliance. The county still struggles as most do with no-shows, but numbers there actually portray an upswing in compliance with juror summonses – the county has a 19.31 percent non-compliance rate, the lowest since 2003 when the average was 19.30 percent.

By expanding communication and reaching out to non-responders more often, the county has been able to get about 70 percent of those re-summonsed jurors to appear and serve.

jury“We found that the vast majority of the people who had failed to appear were not acting deviously, but were hard-working people, eking out a living in a tough economy who simply forgot to appear on their service date,” Court Administrator Martin Goldman said. “I believe that the steps taken by our chief judge and others to stress the importance of jury service have made a major impact on our appearance rate. The court has taken some innovative measures to get this point across, including forms of alternative sentencing.”

One example came in 2008 when Lake Superior Judge Tom Stefaniak Jr. ordered a 20-year-old man who skipped the second day of a murder trial to stand outside the Crown Point Courthouse for an hour holding a sign that said, “I failed to appear for jury duty.”

That type of punishment has worked, even though Judge Stefaniak still battles non-compliance. On a death penalty case in early August, the judge threatened to jail a woman for not filling out a questionnaire the court mailed to 500 potential jurors earlier this year, and the judge ordered Goldman to have the woman arrested after she didn’t appear during a pre-trial hearing. She did eventually appear with the completed questionnaire and avoided jail time, but Judge Stefaniak kept his sights on about 44 other potential jurors who hadn’t filled out their qualification forms.

Decreasing situations where people disregard their civic duty or push it aside is what the state judiciary’s newest public awareness campaign is all about. Chief Justice Randall Shepard and eight trial judges, along with attorney Betsy Greene in Bloomington and Indiana University Maurer School of Law professor Joseph Hoffman appeared earlier this summer in public television advertisements about jury service. The one-minute segments have been shown statewide, encouraging the public to actively engage in their “government by the people” and answer the call to serve as jurors.

That “Jury Service: It’s Your Duty” campaign began in response to the ongoing trend of non-compliance throughout the state, and it signifies the first time the state courts have gotten involved in this way. Judges throughout the state, such as Judge Scopelitis, are encouraged by that approach and also hope more legal community members will step up to help educate the public about jury service.

Attorneys who’ve served on juries say they understand the reasons people give against serving as jurors, but the integrity of the legal system trumps those reasons. Scanlan, who was admitted to the practice of law in 2005 and now practices with Bose McKinney & Evans, says the ability to see the criminal justice system should be worth the sacrifice to anyone – whether they are in the legal profession or not.

Scanlan focuses on the memories of her jury service in the 1990s, before she became an attorney. At the time, she was a new full-time practicing nurse. A weeklong high-profile murder trial in 1999 led to 11 hours of deliberation before the jury found the defendant guilty of lesser charges, and the public was upset with the verdict.

She recalls that the prosecutor failed to adequately explain the felony-murder law to the jurors, and since the defendant wasn’t the only person present at the time of the murders, the jurors got hung up on the actual “doer” in light of all the circumstantial evidence.

“I was surprised to find myself thinking that I could do a better job than the attorneys who presented the case, and that I might enjoy the chance. When I realized I wanted a change from my then-career, one of the factors that influenced my decision to apply to law school was my 1999 jury experience. I was still intrigued by our system of justice and still bothered by what I perceived to be a failure of the attorneys to adequately present the law during that trial. That experience, in part, is responsible for my decision to focus my practice in litigation.”•

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

  2. A high ranking bureaucrat with Ind sup court is heading up an organization celebrating the formal N word!!! She must resign and denounce! http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

  3. ND2019, don't try to confuse the Left with facts. Their ideologies trump facts, trump due process, trump court rules, even trump federal statutes. I hold the proof if interested. Facts matter only to those who are not on an agenda-first mission.

  4. OK so I'll make this as short as I can. I got a call that my daughter was smoking in the bathroom only her and one other girl was questioned mind you four others left before them anyways they proceeded to interrogate my daughter about smoking and all this time I nor my parents got a phone call,they proceeded to go through her belongings and also pretty much striped searched my daughter including from what my mother said they looked at her Brest without my consent. I am furious also a couple months ago my son hurt his foot and I was never called and it got worse during the day but the way some of the teachers have been treating my kids they are not comfortable going to them because they feel like they are mean or don't care. This is unacceptable in my mind i should be able to send my kids to school without worry but now I worry how the adults there are treating them. I have a lot more but I wanted to know do I have any attempt at a lawsuit because like I said there is more that's just some of what my kids are going through. Please respond. Sincerely concerned single parent

  5. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13) Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety. The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231 National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America. The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx? ID=247350 The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483 Conclusion. The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates. The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483 These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30) The full report is available online at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) (page 38) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 1.8% The full report is available online at. http://www.google.com/url?sa= t&source=web&cd=1&ved= 0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.cdcr.ca.gov%2FAdult_ Research_Branch%2FResearch_ documents%2FOutcome_ evaluation_Report_2013.pdf&ei= C9dSVePNF8HfoATX-IBo&usg=AFQjCNE9I6ueHz-o2mZUnuxLPTyiRdjDsQ Bureau of Justice Statistics 5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE WASHINGTON, D.C. Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013 Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy. A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7% Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009. The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05% Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf Once again, These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so. Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one example of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA which many states refused to do. From Justice Policy Institute. Estimated cost to implement SORNA Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M. For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf. Attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or a lie. This is another form of misinformation perpetrated by those who either have a fiduciary interest in continuing the unconstitutional treatment of a disfavored group or are seeking to justify their need for punishment for people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. When this information is placed into the public’s attention by naive media then you have to wonder if the media also falls into one of these two groups that are not truly interested in reporting the truth. Both of these groups of people that have that type of mentality can be classified as vigilantes, bullies, or sociopaths, and are responsible for the destruction of our constitutional values and the erosion of personal freedoms in this country. I think the media or other organizations need to do a in depth investigation into the false assumptions and false data that has been used to further these laws and to research all the collateral damages being caused by these laws and the unconstitutional injustices that are occurring across the country. They should include these injustices in their report so the public can be better informed on what is truly happening in this country on this subject. Thank you for your time.

ADVERTISEMENT