Juries for the Year 2000 and Beyond - Executive Summary
Juries for the Year 2000 and Beyond - Final Report

The Council for Court Excellence initiated the DC Jury Project in April 1996 modeling our work after successful jury reform efforts in Arizona and New York. The DC Jury Project committee, assembled in December 1996, was made up of 36 members drawn from the judicial, legal, civic, academic, and business communities in the District of Columbia. Over the course of a year this committee thoroughly examined the federal and DC courts' trial jury systems in DC. From these lively debates emerged the 32 jury improvement recommendations in Juries for the Year 2000 and Beyond.

The Council for Court Excellence DC Jury Project differed from similar projects in other jurisdictions in two important respects. First, it was initiated and funded by the private sector, thus seeking to speak with the resonance and perspective of the juror and the community. Second, it encompasses both the federal and state trial courts, thus addressing the impact on citizens of being subject to jury duty in two separate court systems in the same community.

Since the February 1998 publication of Juries for the Year 2000 and Beyond, we have endeavored to promote community, judicial and bar awareness of the recommendations and to broaden the source lists from which citizens are summoned for jury duty.

Juries for the Year 2000 and Beyond

Summary List of Recommendations:

A. Educate the Public about Jury Service:

  1. Focus on Positive Means to Encourage Citizen Participation
  2. Provide Orientation Information with Initial Summons
  3. Expand Use of Orientation Videos
  4. Establish a Jury Pride Task Force

B. Broaden the Scope of the Jury Pool:

  1. Improve Juror Source List Management Practices
  2. Expand Juror Source List to Include Tax Rolls, Public Assistance Lists, and New US Citizens
  3. Allow Citizens to Volunteer for Inclusion on the Juror Source List
  4. Increase Level of Cooperation Between US District Court for DC and DC Superior Court
  5. Exempt Citizens Who Have Served Within Two Years
  6. Increase Juror Compensation in DC Superior Court
  7. Reduce Term of Jury Service in US District Court for DC

C. Accommodate Jurors in the Courthouse and Provide Jurors With Accessible and Comfortable Facilities:

  1. Minimize Juror Pre-Trial Waiting Time
  2. Insulate Jurors From Contact with Witnesses or Parties
  3. Provide Meaningful Expressions of Gratitude to all Jurors
  4. Regularly Seek and Respond to Juror Feedback

D. Improve Jury Selection Procedures:

  1. Excuse Jurors Unable to Serve on Any Trial After Initial Voir Dire
  2. Protect the Privacy of Jurors During Jury Selection
  3. Improve the Fairness, Efficiency and Utility of the Voir Dire Process
    • Use a Standard Juror Questionnaire in All Cases
    • Expand Opportunity for Individual Voir Dire of Each Juror
    • Expand Legal Standard for Cause Strikes
    • Eliminate or Drastically Reduce Peremptory Strikes

E. Provide Jurors with Tools to Make Better Decisions:

  1. Allow Jurors to Take Notes During Trials
  2. Allow Jurors to Submit Written Questions for Witnesses
  3. Minimize Juror Waiting Time During Trial
  4. Improve Management of Trial Exhibits
  5. Provide Jurors with Exhibit Notebooks in Extended Trials
  6. Permit Counsel to Make Interim Summations In Extended Trials
  7. Give Final Substantive Jury Instructions Before Closing Arguments
  8. Use Case-Specific Instructions and Use Preliminary and Interim Instructions
  9. Consider in April 1998 Whether to Allow Pre-deliberation Discussions Among Jurors

F. Enhance the Effectiveness of Jury Deliberations:

  1. Include Guidance on the Deliberation Process in Final Instructions
  2. Provide Written Jury Instructions for the Jury's Use in Deliberations
  3. Provide Assistance to Deliberating Juries Who Report to Be at an Impasse
  4. Personally and Informally Thank Jurors After a Trial and Assist Them in Dealing with Stress background

This major court improvement project occupied much of the early organizational energy of the Council for Court Excellence from 1982 to 1986. Examining the successful experiences in Michigan, Texas, and Montgomery County, Maryland, a small dedicated committee of Council for Court Excellence board members served as the nucleus of a legislative drafting process to craft a one day/one trial jury law for DC. Overcoming early judicial and US Justice Department resistance to the proposal, the proposition enjoyed strong DC area civic and business sector support.

The US Congress enacted the District of Columbia Jury Act in 1986. The new Act removed virtually all exemptions from jury service in the DC Courts and provided that the Courts develop a comprehensive jury plan to implement the legislation. The DC Superior Court did an excellent job of devising a new petit jury system for citizens. The new one day/one trial DC Jury System became fully operational in that court in January 1989. Over 45,000 citizens each year now serve as petit jurors in the DC Superior Court whereas under the former two week petit jury system 8,000 citizens would serve over the course of a year for a much longer period. Spreading the opportunity and obligations of citizenship through jury service is one of the goals the courts achieved with the District of Columbia's "One Day / One Trial" jury system.