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. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT