More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Charles Feldman

Charles Feldman

Posted: February 16, 2010 11:47 AM

California Judges Need to Be More Sensitive to Financial Plight of Jurors

What's Your Reaction:

It is time to get tough with judges -- those who have a callous disregard for the financial reality of our times and economic hardships imposed on a growing number of Californians called for jury duty.

A Los Angeles Times article by Carol J. Williams talks about how some jurors are becoming so "disgruntled," they are openly rebellious -- in one case, apparently forcing what would have been a trial by jury to become, instead, a trial by judge!

With a state unemployment and underemployment rate exceeding the national average, the courts are seeing more and more people who are claiming financial hardship if they end up having to serve on a jury trial that might last days or even weeks. While most jury trials are short, there is always the chance of getting stuck on one that seemingly goes on and on and on. The judge gets paid. The lawyers get paid. The court recorder gets paid. The people who clean the courts get paid. The jurors? They get paid, but the ridiculous amount of $15 a day.

For those who have full time employment, especially with large companies, serving on jury duty is usually not a financial burden since their companies typically will pay them as usual, minus the $15 a day they get for serving.

The problem is for those who are freelancing, own their own business, or looking for employment: Each day of jury service is a day of lost pay. It's a day that puts them one step closer to not being able to make their mortgage payment, or pay the electric bill, or have enough for that doctor co-pay.

Because about half of those summoned in Los Angeles County apparently do not even answer the call, according to the Times article, the county is becoming "stricter" in its scrutiny of potential jurors who claim financial hardship.

Oh really!

Well, how about this for "scrutiny" -- trial judges in this state are elected or appointed, with those appointed facing election at the end of a six year term. It is time that voters use the power of the ballot box to purge the court system of judges who do not have the humanity or common sense to understand when they are pushing too far!

I even think a website keeping track of the names of such judges would be a useful tool for voters to use.

Yes, serving on a jury is considered a civic duty. And, every American is entitled, depending upon the alleged offense, to a trial by a jury or his or her peers. But we are living in difficult economic times and the courts must be extra-sensitive about that. What civic good is accomplished, I ask, by a judge who tries to force a potential juror to serve on a trial when that juror will be counting the days till dismissal in order to get back to work, or back to looking for work?

The county, says the Times, has also "tightened sanctions for repeat no-shows, imposing fines of as much as $1,500."

That's real smart! Fine people who already don't have enough money to make ends meet! Nice touch!

Justice is supposed to be blind; it doesn't have to be stupid, too.

Clearly, a person whose company will pay for their time while serving on a jury is a better candidate than is a person who will end up payless for the days or weeks in service to the county.

Charles Feldman is a journalist, media consultant and co-author of the book, "No Time To Think-The Menace of Media Speed and the 24-hour News Cycle." He has covered police and politics in Los Angeles since 1995 and is a regular contributor of investigative reporting to KNX1070 Newsradio.

 

Follow Charles Feldman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/cfeldman1

 
 
  • Comments
  • 5
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
09:27 AM on 02/19/2010
This article is ridiculous. Claiming that voters should enact a vendetta against judges for--gasp--filling juries!! If the citizenry feel that the duty to serve on a jury is too onerous, then they should vote to abolish the right to trial by jury or to compensate jurors more (and pay the correspondingly higher taxes). Judges are tasked to follow the law in filling the jury--this means that they have to determine if a juror warrants a financial hardship exclusion or not, and I am extremely confident that judges take that task seriously. But you cannot claim a financial hardship simply because you are self employed, etc. If people don't like that, change the laws. In the meantime, people need to treat jury duty like what it is, a serious responsibility. Judges and jurors must make serious, life impacting, legal decisions, else our society cannot function smoothly. I would suggest, rather than acting as if judges are somehow the problem, we consider clamping down on those who skip out on jury duty or make ridiculous excuses (I'm a teacher, etc.). If you cannot be bothered to fulfill your duty to serve on a jury when asked, then perhaps you should forfeit your right to ask other citizens to someday serve on a jury for you.
03:18 AM on 02/18/2010
We could create jobs by hiring professional jurors, people who understand the law and have the ability to put their feelings/prejudices aside. This system works well in Europe where people study much like paralegals here, and the results are fair.

When I sat on a jury several wanted to convict the accused because they didn't like his clothes and hair. The rest of us had to explain what our job was to these not-very-bright jurists. Had a few more of them been picked the man, who was innocent, might have been wrongly convicted. That was about 25 years ago: people are dumber now and I imagine the problem is even worse.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jalowe1957
Poisonous epitaphs dished out periodically.
05:54 PM on 02/16/2010
I've just served jury duty for two days in Los Angeles County Superior Court. I was part of a panel of 55 prospective jurors that was brought in. We were questioned as to whether we have, or have had worked in law enforcement, if we committed crimes or were victims of a violent crime, and the judge in question had little tolerance for financial hardship cases, and ditto for mothers with small children who expressed concern about being unable to pick their children up from school on time.

Apparently the trial attorneys showed more mercy than the judge by virtue of knocking out jurors from the pool. In the end, I received a check for $20.40 - $15 for one day's jury duty plus 34 cents a mile for commuting, which came out to $5.40.

However, I had a conversation with an unemployed substitute school teacher from Pasadena who was selected for jury duty. He said that since he was laid off from his position, serving on a jury for a couple of weeks gave him something better to do, and it paid him for not staying at home and sitting on his assets.

Note: Jurors are not paid until after their second day of jury duty.
05:10 PM on 02/16/2010
I am a California lawyer and have been practicing civil litigation for 28 years. Over the last few years, most California trial judges I have encountered have been extremely careful about limiting the lengths of jury trials, so that jurors will not have to suffer unduly (I was involved in a multi-party trial many years ago in which the jurors were told that the trial would last about six weeks; six months later, the jury revolted, with several jurors passing notes to the judge that they were not going to listen anymore; frankly, I could not blame them). At least some effort is being made not to inconvenience jurors too much.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
antaeus
Marriage Equality Is Here
01:00 PM on 02/16/2010
Relatives in other states report getting called by the decade; in L.A. we seem to get called every 13 months. As done in Los Angeles, jury service is a miserable experience unbefitting what should be an honored tradition. It's becoming difficult to see what exactly L.A. does right.