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. Applause, applause, applause ..... but, is this duty to serve the constitutional order not much more incumbent upon the State, whose only aim is to be pure and unadulterated justice, than defense counsel, who is also charged with gaining a result for a client? I agree both are responsible, but it seems to me that the government attorneys bear a burden much heavier than defense counsel .... "“I note, much as we did in Mechling v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, that the attorneys representing the State and the defendant are both officers of the court and have a responsibility to correct any obvious errors at the time they are committed."

  2. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  3. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  4. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  5. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

ADVERTISEMENT