PERSPECTIVE ON JURY DUTY : Our Civic Obligation Is on Trial : Citizen apathy, court mismanagement and budget cuts imperil our right to a trial by peers. Can we save the system?

Imagine a business with 450,000 pieces of unprocessed mail gathering dust in bins and on shelves, waiting to be opened and sorted by hand. Imagine further that the business must communicate daily with thousands of people by phone but has no automated phone system for collecting, recording or dispatching individualized messages.

Now imagine that the business depends on the goodwill of thousands of unpaid workers, but is unable to show its appreciation for their services by providing even the minimal physical comforts most people expect of regular office employment.

This is not a fantasy. It’s Los Angeles County’s trial courts and their dwindling pool of jurors.

Los Angeles County’s jury system is dangerously close to collapse. The causes of this crisis are multifaceted. Those of us elected to manage our courts have been seeking solutions. Not all of the possible remedies, however, are within the power of judges to implement. Some of them will require the support of our political leaders. All will require the support of our citizens. Before discussing answers, however, it is important to understand the problem.

Essentially, there are three things ailing the jury system:

* Citizen apathy when called to jury service.

* The court’s failure to properly manage jurors.

* Diminished funds and resources.

Let me discuss each of these in detail.

Unlike the armed services, which today are populated by patriotic but professionally compensated volunteers, the jury system has always depended on the draft. A citizen called to be a juror is conscripted from private life into public service and compensated only $5 a day. The jury induction process begins with questionnaires sent to selected registered voters and adult drivers in the county. In 1993-94, however, almost 50% of the nearly 4 million questionnaires sent to prospective jurors in this county were not returned. Ultimately, another 40% of the people receiving questionnaires were either excused or disqualified from service for hardship or other legal reasons. The remaining 10% carried the entire burden of the system.

The initial lack of response to the questionnaire is not the fault of the Postal Service. The sad fact is that while we Americans cherish the jury system, too few of us are willing to make the sacrifice to serve periodically as jurors. Service can be quite inconvenient to jurors and jurors’ employers. “Apathy” might not be the best term to describe the problem of almost 2 million unreturned questionnaires; I should have used the term “civil disobedience,” because people are deliberately ignoring their legal and civil obligation.

Historically, we have depended on employers to provide an ample supply of compensated jurors, who could serve the five, 10, 15 or more days needed to try many of our cases without incurring financial hardships. California’s strained economy, however, has had an impact on the continued ability of many businesses to pay their employees while they serve jury duty. There are no longer enough employers willing to pay their workers for 10 or more days of jury service.

Citizen apathy is not a character flaw endemic to the people of Los Angeles County. The courts have played an active role in creating this condition. Many jurors have perceived an inefficient system run by aloof judges. Tiresome, unexplained waiting in overcrowded assembly rooms and noisy hallways makes jury duty not only inconvenient but in many cases unpleasant. What official appreciation is shown is seldom adequate and often perfunctory. Jurors often say that they feel they are treated like children and herded like cattle. Perhaps it should not be surprising that 50% of our citizens fail to respond to their legal obligation to serve.

With the steadily increasing demand for criminal trials, in part due to tougher penalties now faced by offenders, it is imperative that we immediately address the crisis in our jury system before drastic measures become the only solutions available. Recently, I announced a 10-point program to save the system. Some parts of this program will involve assistance from our political leaders, so as to provide adequate staffing and updated telephone equipment, capital funds to improve the county’s jury assembly rooms, the acquisition of new computer hardware and software and other necessary technological tools. But most important, our courts must also become more sensitive and efficient by:

* Streamlining the summons and qualifications of jurors into a one-step procedure.

* Reducing the term of jury service to a one-day orientation followed by nine consecutive days of on-call duty.

* Holding citizens legally accountable when they put a greater burden on those who serve as jurors by ignoring their own call to jury service.

* Soliciting juror feedback through the use of jury critiques and involving past jurors in focus groups.

* Implementing individual and employer recognition programs.

Trial by jury is at the foundation of our justice system. As a concept of fairness and as protection of the individual from the raw power of government, the right to a jury trial is embedded in both the United States and California constitutions. We Americans consider our right to be tried by a jury of our peers to be nearly as sacred as our right to vote and the freedom to speak our minds. That is why all of us--judges, political leaders, lawyers, employers and citizens--have a duty to act now and support these efforts to save our jury system in Los Angeles County.