THE TIMES POLL : Jury System Is Held in Low Regard by Most

As jury selection gets under way in the murder trial of O. J. Simpson, a majority of Los Angeles County residents express little faith in the jury system and believe they have no civic obligation to serve, according to a Times poll.

The poll found that 55% of county residents surveyed last week have “only some or very little” confidence in the ability of juries to decide criminal cases. The respondents volunteered that the system’s major flaws are incompetent and unknowledgeable jurors who fail to set aside prejudices and preconceived notions.

Doubts about the jury system crossed racial lines, although African Americans expressed the least confidence in it. Respondents were almost evenly divided over whether jurors decide verdicts on the evidence (40%) or according to their predispositions (44%).

“That is a lot of doubt,” said Times Poll Director John Brennan.

The survey also contained bad news for jury critics who believe the system would improve if more people took the time to serve. A sizable 57% of the respondents said they regard jury duty as a “personal choice” that each citizen should make individually, compared to 41% who viewed it as a civic responsibility.

Just over half said they would be inclined to serve on a criminal jury if called, but 43% said they would avoid jury duty. Those who would resist serving cited such impediments as financial reasons, ill health, lack of time or family obligations. A reluctance to judge other people was one of the most commonly cited reasons for not serving.

“I really don’t want to serve on another jury because I really fear for making a wrong decision,” said Fernando Ponce, 38, a longshoreman who served on a hung jury several years ago in Norwalk.

“You hear the defendant’s side of the case,” he said, “and it sounds convincing. And then you hear the other side, and now you are confused.”

Almost two-thirds of the respondents, particularly women and lower-income citizens, said serving on a jury would cause them hardship.

The prospect of being sequestered was particularly odious, the poll found. By 59% to 34%, potential jurors said they would resist serving on a jury if they had to be isolated from family and friends. A majority also said they would try to get out of a trial that lasted more than two weeks.

Even though residents doubt the competence of county jurors, the poll found that people who have served are actually better-educated than the average population.

Sixty-six percent of previous jurors have at least some college education, compared to 47% with that level of schooling in the general population. Past jurors also tend to be better off financially than the average population and older than 45.

Prior jurors were substantially less cynical about juries, with 54% declaring that the system works well in criminal cases and four out of every five describing their jury experience as satisfying. Only 8% said the last jury they served on split by gender, and only 15% said the panel divided racially.

“Jury service is probably a good way to improve faith in the jury system,” Brennan said.

Aileen Placensia, 28, a Long Beach teacher, was among those whose jury experience inspired confidence. She was an alternate juror in an attempted murder case, but she agreed with the other jurors that the prosecution had not proved its case.

“We knew he did it,” said Placensia, whose brother is a prosecutor. “But the prosecution didn’t prove it so we couldn’t convict. . . . I don’t think the problem is with the jury. The problem is more with the prosecution and what they have to prove.”

The Times poll also found that county residents have significant doubts about police in their community. Nearly half of the respondents said racism is common among their law enforcement officers, and 40% believe police officers commonly lie on the witness stand.

A plurality of 47% thought perjury by police officers was uncommon. Among past jurors, 59% said it was infrequent.

African Americans were most likely to believe police are racist (70%), followed by majorities of Asians (62%) and Latinos (56%). But even a third of whites agreed.

Brennan called the finding on police veracity “surprising.” Nearly 70% of African Americans said police commonly lie under oath, followed by 49% of Latinos, 44% of Asians and 26% of whites who believed so.

Los Angeles Police Lt. John Dunkin blamed some of the suspicion of police on attacks on officers involved in the Simpson investigation by Simpson’s lawyers.

“I think you are hard-pressed to find somebody who has not read something about this trial, who hasn’t been exposed to the defense team’s attacks on the credibility of these officers,” Dunkin said.

The Times poll, conducted Sept. 17-23, surveyed 1,703 Los Angeles County residents, including 1,038 residents who are eligible to serve on juries and 355 people who have served in the past. The margin of sampling error for all respondents, including eligible jurors, was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

More than two out of five of all those polled criticized the Los Angeles County court system as biased against some groups, with many singling out African Americans and Latinos as the most likely victims. A whopping 77% of blacks believe the system is unfair, compared to 52% of Latinos, 32% of whites and 30% of Asians.

Dale Fearson, 35, an African American businesswoman from West Hollywood, summed up suspicions by blacks of juries, courts and the police with one word: “History.”

“People don’t forget quickly,” she said. “Why would you expect them to have faith . . . when it wasn’t that long ago that they couldn’t be a juror, couldn’t vote? If someone said you committed a crime, particularly in certain states, you would have to be O. J. Simpson to get out of it.”

Lawyers, like the rest of the criminal justice system, scored poorly in the poll. Clear majorities of the respondents said they have “only some or very little” faith in criminal defense attorneys and prosecutors, with both groups getting equally poor endorsements. Medical doctors, by contrast, received a 61% positive confidence rating.

Greg Totten, executive director of the California District Attorneys Assn., attributed the findings to recent controversial cases, such as the state trial of the police officers accused of beating motorist Rodney G. King.

“The results haven’t always responded to the perception of a just verdict. . . ,” he said. “I think people are more cynical about the system and those who have important responsibilities in it than they used to be.”

Mary Broderick, executive director of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, which represents 2,400 criminal defense attorneys, agreed.

“When someone is acquitted, they blame the system,” she said, even though other factors, such as weak or poorly presented evidence, may have influenced the outcome more.

Although suspects are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise, 61% of those surveyed said they believe someone is probably guilty when brought to trial.

“Most of the public believes if somebody is arrested, they must have committed the crime,” said Los Angeles criminal defense attorney Barry Tarlow, “otherwise why did the police arrest this particular person. I find the statistics not surprising, but extremely troubling.”

Nevertheless, four out of five agreed that the prosecution has the duty to prove guilt, with more than half “strongly” approving of that legal requirement.

Even as respondents accused juries of failing to put aside personal beliefs, they admitted that they would have trouble ignoring what they have heard about the Simpson case if selected for his jury.

Respondents were divided over whether it would be difficult (46%) or easy (49%) for them to decide on a verdict without considering what they already know. But 50% also said they are unsure whether Simpson is guilty of first-degree murder in the killings of his former wife and her friend.

Queried about jury reform, almost 60% favored requiring jurors to have a minimum level of education to improve the system, and 51% said juries should reflect the racial, ethnic and gender distribution of the community.

“Ironically,” Brennan said, “the most popular argument is mandatory educational requirements for jurors, even though the poll shows the level for past jurors is already well over that for the county generally.”

Fifty percent of the respondents said juries should be allowed to reach majority verdicts instead of unanimous decisions in criminal cases, a suggestion made several months ago by Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti. Asians supported majority verdicts by 62%, Latinos by 57%, whites by 46% and blacks by 42%.

But a plurality believe the system would be worse if judges, rather than juries, determined guilt or innocence. Only 34% said that transferring the authority to judges would improve the system, and 43% believed it would weaken it.

“A jury would be better than a judge,” said Long Beach resident Edith Downey, 56. “A judge is only one person. You get a more unbiased view if it is a jury.”

The poll found that 62% of the county’s eligible jurors work for a living. Asked if their employers would pay for jury duty, 37% said no, 31% said yes and a substantial 22% did not know.

Among those with employers willing to pay, the majority said they would receive their salary for jury duty for two weeks or less. Only 12% of working people said their employers would pay for unlimited jury service.

Fearson, the West Hollywood businesswoman, was among the 36% who have been summoned to jury duty but did not serve.

“I was in such a pressure-filled, stressful job, I thought it could be a vacation,” said Fearson, who worked as an accountant at the time. “But my employer discouraged it. They said they would have to hire a temp, and ‘God forbid if they do a better job than you do.’ I really got the picture.”

Most past jurors are men, even though the pool of eligible jurors is predominantly female. Latinos are “starkly understated” among county residents who have served on juries, Brennan said, as well as among the population eligible for jury duty.

The poll director attributed the disparity to language difficulties among some Latinos and to the fact that many may not be registered to vote or drive a car. Los Angeles County summons jurors from voter registration and Department of Motor Vehicles lists, including holders of DMV identification cards.

Sixteen percent of those surveyed said they had served on a jury. Nearly half said they never have been called for jury duty, including 62% of the Latinos, 51% of Asians, 41% of African Americans and 32% of whites.

Three-quarters of those who never served but received a summons said they were excused from jury duty without having to appear at a courthouse.

“I got out of it,” said Don Hofreiter, 31, a Long Beach salesman. “Because of the line of work I am in, a few days would be OK, but not two or three weeks. I think part of the problem with the jury system is the people who can afford to sit on it.”

Beth Bonora, president of the National Jury Project/West, an Oakland jury consulting firm, said the Times poll shows that a public education effort is needed to improve attitudes toward juries and increase the willingness to serve.

“There has been a lot of public criticism of the jury system in the last 10 years,” she said, “and not an insignificant amount of it has come from ad campaigns by manufacturing associations and the insurance industry . . . I think it is a terrific system, and it disturbs me that people may be losing faith in it.”

About This Series

In this four-part series, The Times examines the strengths and flaws of the American jury system and the need for reform.

* Sunday: Deadlocks in recent high-profile cases have thrown the spotlight on the U.S. jury system, raising questions about whether it deserves to survive.

* Monday: High-priced consultants are helping defendants pick favorable juries, but how much of a difference can they really make?

* Today: The Times Poll examines attitudes toward jury service and the jury system in Los Angeles County.

* Wednesday: Warning that the jury trial system could self-destruct without change, a small but growing number of legal experts are calling for sweeping reforms.

How the Poll Was Conducted

The Times Poll interviewed 1,703 Los Angeles County adults, including 1,038 residents who are eligible to serve on juries and 355 people who have served in the past, by telephone, Sept. 17 through 23. Telephone numbers were chosen from a list of all exchanges in the county. Random-digit dialing techniques were used so listed and non-listed numbers could be contacted. Interviewing was conducted in English and Spanish. The sample was weighted slightly to conform with census figures for sex, race, age and education. The margin of sampling error for the total sample and eligible jurors is plus or minus 3 percentage points. For certain subgroups the error margin may be somewhat higher. Poll results can also be affected by other factors, such as question wording and the order in which questions are presented.

Excuses, Excuses, Excuses

Many are called but relatively few ever serve on juries. Here are some of the excuses culled from the files of the Los Angeles County office of the jury commissioner.

“I am livering (sic) in another city. I can’t do jury service.”

*

“I have the dizzy flu and I fell on my head. Now hopefully I will be better soon.”

*

“Glad to serve, if I could get a ride to Los Angeles County from Folsom State Prison.”

*

“I am one who has lost all my hair and I need a full wig. I cannot be in an enclosed room for any length of time because of the extreme heat.”

*

“I watch hummingbirds for a living, and the hummingbirds are hatching at this time of the year.”

*

“I cannot serve. My heart stopped.”

*

“I cannot serve. My poodle is in heat. The dog downstairs is a mongrel and I am afraid he will get to my poodle.”

*

“I cannot serve. I am under my doctor’s car. (sic)”

THE TIMES POLL: Attitudes and Opinions

The poll found that about three-quarters of Los Angeles County residents are eligible for jury service. To be eligible, potential jurors must be citizens, speak English and be registered to vote or hold a California driver’s license. They cannot be peace officers, cannot have served on a jury in the last 12 months and cannot be convicted felons. Sixteen percent of county residents have served on a criminal or civil jury in the county.

Do you have confidence in the jury system?* Great deal/quite a lot: 39% Only some/very little: 55% Don’t know: 6% ***

Do you think it’s a civic duty or your personal choice to serve on a jury?* Civic responsibility: 41% Personal choice: 57% Don’t know: 2% ***

Are you inclined to serve or not to serve on a jury?** Inclined to serve: 54% Not inclined: 44% Don’t know: 2%

All Those in Those Those who county the jury who would wouldn’t Percentage who: residents pool serve** serve** have confidence in the jury 39% 39% 44% 31% system have confidence in criminal 23% 24% 29% 20% defense lawyers have confidence in criminal 24% 25% 28% 21% prosecutors have confidence in 51% 55% 58% 50% DNA testing think law enforcement 49% 47% 50% 43% officers are commonly racist think law enforcement 40% 39% 37% 39% officers often give false court testimony think suspects are most 61% 63% 65% 60% often guilty think the burden should 84% 83% 89% 78% be on the prosecutor to prove guilt think the court system 43% 44% 41% 49% is biased think criminal juries 44% 45% 45% 45% are prejudiced have been a crime victim 11% 10% 13% 7% in the past year are male 49% 43% 43% 43% are female 51% 57% 57% 57% are white 46% 55% 53% 58% are black 10% 12% 10% 14% are Latino 33% 25% 27% 21% are Asian 10% 7% 9% 6% are 18-29 years old 28% 26% 33% 19% are 30-44 years old 37% 34% 35% 31% are 45-64 years old 21% 22% 18% 28% are 65 years old or more 14% 18% 14% 22% are high school dropouts 31% 23% 21% 25% are high school graduates 21% 23% 21% 25% have some college education 47% 54% 58% 50% earn less than $20,000 22% 18% 14% 22% annually earn $20,000-$40,000 33% 33% 33% 33% annually earn more than $40,000 38% 43% 48% 38% annually

Past criminal Percentage who: jurors have confidence in the jury 54% system have confidence in criminal 28% defense lawyers have confidence in criminal 31% prosecutors have confidence in 56% DNA testing think law enforcement 41% officers are commonly racist think law enforcement 29% officers often give false court testimony think suspects are most 56% often guilty think the burden should 91% be on the prosecutor to prove guilt think the court system 31% is biased think criminal juries 38% are prejudiced have been a crime victim 14% in the past year are male 52% are female 48% are white 60% are black 13% are Latino 18% are Asian 8% are 18-29 years old 4% are 30-44 years old 30% are 45-64 years old 39% are 65 years old or more 27% are high school dropouts 12% are high school graduates 21% have some college education 66% earn less than $20,000 9% annually earn $20,000-$40,000 29% annually earn more than $40,000 57% annually

** Among the eligible jury pool

* Among all L.A. County residents

Source: L.A. Times Poll