Subscribe to CCE  newsletters and event  announcements.

 E-MAIL ADDRESS:

The Need
Every five years, the Council for Court Excellence (CCE; the Council) develops a new long-range plan through consultation with community, court, and professional leaders. In 1995, DC Superior Court Judge and CCE Executive Committee member Gregory E. Mize proposed that CCE take on the issue of jury modernization. During the long-range planning process, Judge Mize successfully made the case for jury improvement to the community of stakeholders:

• many aspects of the jury systems in DC were outdated and not serving the community well enough (perceived lack of randomness in summoning and selection, long waits at the courthouse, frequent lack of tools to assist jurors in long or complex cases);
• several other jurisdictions had either just completed or were starting jury projects of their own, making the timing right for DC to help lead the way nationally;
• CCE was ideally positioned to lead this study because, as a community-based nonprofit, it could raise needed funding;
• CCE could also draw on its diverse base of members and volunteers (lawyers, judges, and former jurors) to provide expertise and give the study credibility; and
• CCE, as an independent organization, could also help coordinate efforts so that the study addressed both the local and federal trial courts in Washington, DC.

The Collaboration
In addition to the substantive recommendations made by the DC Jury Project, many project volunteers found that one of the most gratifying and productive aspects of the DC Jury Project was the make-up of the committee. Instead of assembling a generic group of like-minded lawyers and judges, the Council actively recruited citizens with jury service experience as well as academicians with an interest in the field. Additionally, attorneys and businesspeople were called upon from a variety of backgrounds and viewpoints. Federal and local trial judges were included. Court administrators and jury officers rounded out the group.

The diversity of professional experience and personal background among Jury Project members was not an effort to have token representatives on the committee. Rather, the wide range of viewpoints enhanced the effectiveness of the collaborative effort. Each member was respected for his or her own perspective, but everyone understood that the purpose was to reach common/higher ground for the good of the overall system. Not unlike a jury, the group worked methodically, setting aside, when convictions allowed, personal interests or biases that would impede true progress.

Also like deliberating jurors, committee members accepted the challenge with honesty and integrity, struggling at times with controversial issues and differences of opinion yet continuing to search for the right answers – overcoming the destructive chasm that so often divides the civic and the legal communities. Because this uncommon level of commitment and vision came from such a diverse committee and because former jurors contributed so significantly to the conclusions, the bench and the bar listened to their consumers by giving careful consideration to all of the recommendations in Juries for the Year 2000 and Beyond.

The Challenges
One lesson learned from this collaborative effort involves group dynamics. Since the committee was comprised of people who often sit opposite one other in the courtroom, perspectives and theories were bound to collide. Undoubtedly, the most controversial issue the DC Jury Project addressed was the jury selection process.

While many members of the DC Jury Project believed that peremptory challenges should be abolished entirely, an overwhelming majority believed that if not eliminated, they should be drastically reduced. Several 2-3 hour meetings were devoted entirely to this topic, and at each, the discussion was both enlightened and forthright. Over time, committee members developed a sense of trust and respect for one another. Improper gamesmanship, cynicism and distrust were replaced by year’s end with a refreshing dose of candor and a willingness to listen.
After much study, soul searching, and listening to our juror-colleagues, a majority of the Jury Project committee reached the conclusion that the peremptory challenge is inconsistent with the fundamental precepts of an impartial jury.

The Outcome
The result of the one-year study was a comprehensive report suggesting ways to improve the systems. Throughout the report, the primary theme is that jurors need more institutionalized respect. The report includes suggestions of means to increase the number of citizens who answer the jury summons; proposals for reforms our courts might employ to help jurors better follow and retain testimony in all trials; ideas to improve the deliberation processes jurors use; and, finally, notions of how the overall jury experience can be enhanced.

The Council then spent two years overseeing and encouraging adoption of many DC Jury Project recommendations. CCE thinks that our collaborative process provided credibility regarding the quality of the recommendations and paved the way for implementation of reforms. CCE published a final report on the implementation effort at the end of that two-year period.

As a result CCE has become known among experts on jury issues, and improving that system continues to be one of our signature issues. We continue today assisting the courts in improving the juror source list – the master wheel from which citizens are summoned for duty.

Back to Top

Council for Court Excellence | T 202.785.5917 | F 202.785.5922 |