85.7 F
San Fernando
Thursday, Mar 28, 2024

New Challenges in Jury Selection

New Challenges in Jury Selection By SHELLY GARCIA Senior Reporter Time was, a lawyer looking over the waiting jury pool found retirees, government employees and students. But today’s jurors are just as likely to be doctors, CEOs, even judges. The change in juror demographics has come as a result of a new system that seeks to grease the wheels of justice by casting a wider net for jurors and, in turn, limiting the time each is required to serve. But if the one-day, one-trial system has expedited much of the process, it has also changed it in ways that can be critical to a system where the outcome of a trial may depend as much on the jury selected as on the case presented. “The most noticeable effect is it’s much harder to get a jury now,” said Ann Marie Wise, a deputy district attorney assigned to the Van Nuys Court. “We get a lot more excuses because judges are not letting people out for hardship, so they’re getting a lot more creative.” Under the one day, one trial system, which has been phased into the Los Angeles court system over the last four years, jurors not selected for a trial after the first day or the completion of a jury selection are excused if they haven’t been selected. Before, a potential juror would have to remain available at the courthouse for a 10-day period. The system was put into place in response to criticism that so much time was wasted while jurors sat around in the courthouse for days or weeks, often without ever serving on a trial, and it has greatly reduced the time workers spend away from their jobs. It has also increased the pool of jurors because the courts contend that the new, less onerous system allows nearly everyone to be available for service. But implementing the one day, one trial system has also meant stricter rules about who can be excused from jury service because a smaller group of jurors is made available each day, and the courts must make certain they have enough bodies to fill the juries that are impaneled on that day. Judges are no longer willing to excuse the self-employed, those who are not reimbursed for service by their employers, or those who simply claim their absence would constitute a business, personal or financial hardship, for instance. Attorneys say that’s opened a whole Pandora’s Box of excuses during voir dire, a term which translates as “to speak the truth,” and refers to the process of questioning jurors to determine their suitability for a particular trial from the ridiculous to the self-righteous, Take the entertainment industry executive who insisted he would be unfair to the prosecution because he believed everyone was innocent. Or the defense attorney who used his moment of voir dire to expound on the inequities of the criminal justice system in Los Angeles. Under pressure Attorneys say they now have to sift through these and other excuses to determine whether a juror might do more harm than good to their case. And they have to do it under a time pressure that did not exist under the old system. “Especially under one day one trial, there’s an urge on the part of the court to get it done fast,” said Steve Meister, co-chair of the criminal law section of the San Fernando Valley Bar Association. “Depending on the case, depending on the panel, sometimes that benefits one side or the other. You might not win a case in argument, but you may win it in jury selection.” Under the old system, attorneys say they were able to use the challenges they have available in the selection process to dismiss jurors who, for instance, said they had to be home to shuttle their kids to soccer practice, if the judge was unwilling to do so. But now, there simply would not be enough jurors for the trials scheduled if attorneys were to indulge those who asked to be excused. Though attorneys stopped short of saying one day one trial has impacted the outcome of their cases, they do say it has presented some new challenges. Chief among them is the mindset of jurors they have available. With fewer jurors dismissed from duty, a panel is likely to include more jurors resentful over being in court, and attorneys are going to some lengths to make sure the resentment doesn’t spill over into the trial. A more diverse pool, with varied life experiences and high levels of responsibility in their jobs, can be a benefit, whether it’s the prosecution or the defense, attorneys said. “Plaintiffs always want jurors who want to be on the jury,” said Larry Grassini, a partner at Grassini & Wrinkle, a Woodland Hills firm that specializes in representing plaintiffs on personal injury and product liability cases. “The plaintiff brought the case. So if they start out with the feeling that they wish they weren’t there, the person who caused them to be there is likely to suffer.” Attorneys on either side of the table also say they now have to be more cognizant than ever of the need to acknowledge jurors’ time, particularly since jurors under the new system are more likely to have other pressures and responsibilities outside the courtroom. “Sometimes jurors appreciate it when your cross examination is brief. That may be because you don’t have anything to ask that will benefit you,” said attorney Steve Meister, co-chair of the criminal law section of the San Fernando Valley Bar Association. “But you can make it sound like you’re doing it for the benefit of the jury.” Taking over Another issue arising from the types of jurors who now serve is that a judge or another attorney or even a high-powered chief executive officer, now all the more likely to be on a panel under the revamped system, could take over the process because of their stature, and a deliberation that should involve 12 jurors boils down to the opinion of one. “If you’re going to take the case to one person, you may as well take it to the judge,” said Grassini. “It’s always something we’ve had to be aware of, it’s become a little more prevalent.” Under the old system, jurors often served over and over again because it was the same jurors who were willing to serve, often retirees, government employees or those employed by huge corporations with liberal payment policies for those on jury duty. That familiarity with the process was helpful, attorneys say, in speeding the process along. “People with experience doing jury service come back quicker,” said Maureen Green, a deputy district attorney assigned to the Van Nuys Court of the time it takes a jury to reach a verdict. “They pick the foreperson; they go over the instructions, they get it done. You’ll notice if the jurors you pick are inexperienced, they may be out longer.” But the old system also limited the range of experience of the jurors on any given panel, and attorneys agree that, more often than not, such a panel was not advantageous. “Don’t forget the cases that go to trial because the crime is so horrific, there’s no deal (possible) or it’s a weak case for the defense,” said James Blatt, a criminal defense attorney in Encino. “When you have try-able cases, most defense attorneys agree you would want the most educated, highly intelligent jurors you can find. They weigh the evidence, they look at reasonable doubt.” A more diverse pool, often with jobs that carry a high degree of responsibility, can be a benefit, whether it’s the prosecution or the defense, attorneys said. “From the prosecution standpoint, you want someone who is invested in the system,” said Deputy D.A. Green. “You want people who are pro-system, not anti-authoritarian, people who tend to trust the prosecution.” Indeed, when all is said and done, attorneys say they believe that jurors want to do the right thing, no matter their attitude coming in, and the new selection process has only served to renew their faith in the system overall. “Once you step inside the courtroom, most people rise to the occasion,” said Robert A. Schwartz, a criminal attorney and past president of the Los Angeles Criminal Courts Bar Association. “And they divorce themselves from their day-to-day concerns and give it their all.”

Featured Articles

Related Articles