be considered too marginal or too elite to be spared
from the basic task of jury service.
A number of institutional and social factors affect
citizens’ ability and willingness to serve, and they
often have a disproportionate effect on minority popu-
lations. For example, voter registration lists, the most
popular source list for compiling the master jury list,
have long been criticized for overrepresenting popula-
tions that are older, more affluent, and highly educated
and being less representative of minorities. The high
mobility rates of youth and lower-income individuals
result in substantial numbers of jury summonses—on
average, 15% nationally—being returned as undeliver-
able by the U.S. Postal Service. Some qualification cri-
teria, such as citizenship and English language fluency,
disproportionately exclude Hispanic, Asian, and other
immigrant populations. Occupational exemptions for
various types of professionals place a disproportionate
burden of jury service on those who do not qualify for
an exemption. The length of time that citizens are
required to serve can last up to 6 months or more
in some jurisdictions, and juror fees rarely cover
more than daily travel and out-of-pocket expenses.
Consequently, an average of 9% of prospective jurors
are excused for hardship. Another 9% of individuals—
again disproportionately lower income and less
educated—fail to respond to their jury summonses.Specific Reforms
To address these myriad issues, state and federal
courts have gradually implemented various improve-
ments in jury administration that are designed to
expand the jury pool to encompass all jury-eligible
citizens, equalize the burden of jury service across the
entire population, and make it possible for all jury-
eligible individuals to serve if summonsed. For exam-
ple, half of all state courts now use both registered
voters and licensed drivers lists to compile the master
jury list, and 20% of courts use three or more source
lists. Each new source list adds unique names that
were not found on the previous source lists, thus
expanding the pool of prospective jurors. Many courts
also employ sophisticated mailing list management
tools, such as those developed by mail order retailers,
to verify and update addresses and reduce the propor-
tion of undeliverable summonses. Several jurisdic-
tions have eliminated occupational exemptions; 12
states and the District of Columbia provide exemp-
tions only for previous jury service.To reduce the burden of jury service on individuals,
nearly one in four courts (23%), whose collective juris-
diction encompasses more than half the U.S. popula-
tion, now employs a “one day/one trial” term of service.
That is, if a person reports for jury service and is
impaneled as a trial juror, he or she serves until the
completion of that trial and then is released for some
statutorily defined period of time. If the juror is not
impaneled as a trial juror by the end of the day, he or
she again is released from jury service for the statuto-
rily defined period of time. Many courts have also
enacted deferral policies that permit citizens to select a
new reporting date if the original summons date con-
flicts with a prior obligation. From a purely logistical
standpoint, a shorter term of service in which jurors are
used and released, rather than reused in subsequent jury
trials, requires courts to summon more citizens for jury
service to ensure a sufficient number of prospective
jurors to try cases. Thus, this arrangement simultane-
ously relieves the burden of jury service on individual
jurors and distributes the burden more equitably among
the jury-eligible population of the community.
Other jurisdictions have increased juror fees to more
adequately reimburse jurors’ out-of-pocket expenses.
Because the fiscal implications of these changes on
state and local governments can be quite substantial,
many jurisdictions are moving away from a flat daily
payment for jury service and toward a graduated pay-
ment system in which jurors receive a reduced fee, or
no fee, on the first day of jury service and then an
increased fee on subsequent days. This type of payment
arrangement works well in jurisdictions with one
day/one trial terms. It minimizes the cost of jury service
incurred by courts on the first day of service, when
large numbers of jurors report for jury selection, but
provides somewhat better compensation to those citi-
zens who serve for longer periods of time as sworn trial
jurors. Some states have also coupled improved juror
compensation systems with legislation mandating that
employers compensate employees while on jury ser-
vice for a given period of time (usually 3–10 days), thus
minimizing the financial hardship jurors might experi-
ence due to lost income. Finally, Arizona, Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Oklahoma have enacted legislation
authorizing a “Lengthy Trial Fund” to reimburse jurors
who are impaneled on longer trials (e.g., 10 days or
more) for lost income up to a statutorily defined maxi-
mum ($100 to $300 per day).
Along with efforts to reduce the burden of jury
service, many courts have stepped up enforcement400 ———Jury Administration ReformsJ-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 400