A Summons to Jury Service Is a Duty, Not Just an Option : Trial before peer jurors is basic to the U.S. democratic process. But a system in which so many of those called to serve never reply is a system unwound.

The pink and black paper in the mailbox is so familiar that I’m annoyed, even before reading the word summons . But there it is: The Superior Court of Los Angeles County is summoning me--again--for jury duty.

Jury duty in L.A. County is a hurry-up-and-wait world where tedium and boredom are constants and a sense of accomplishment tends to be elusive. It’s never convenient, often challenging and can be expensive. And it’s an experience that recurs with frequency, at least for a few. Since first serving here, I have received an affidavit about every 13 months, as regular as death, taxes and crime in the streets.

Each time, I secretly hope that the system might “forget” me. It doesn’t. The summons always arrives. And I always answer it, and feel sheepish that I do.

With good reason. For although many here are called, few show up. In L.A. County, for the 1993-94 fiscal year, about 36% of the nearly 4 million questionnaires sent to prospective jurors went unanswered. Another 40% of those who got a questionnaire were excused or disqualified. In the end, only about 10% actually served.

So I’m part of the 10%: the few, the semi-proud, the increasingly reluctant. If you’re one of the many, a scofflaw who tosses out affidavits, here’s what you’ve been missing:

My most recent summons arrived in September, for service at the Van Nuys courthouse. Since The Times pays employees’ salaries for 10 days of service, and since judges I encountered honored that limit, I suffered inconvenience but no financial hardship. Since The Times also requested consecutive days of service, I never used the phone call-in system. (Other jurors said it’s much improved but still has some bugs.)

Parking was a breeze: ample, nearby and best of all, free. Creature comforts in the juror assembly room were minimal but the place was mostly tolerable. On one afternoon we had more people than chairs--an extreme problem--but this was resolved when a panel was called to a courtroom.

My biggest complaint was boredom: seven days of waiting before finally being seated for a short civil case. It sounds luxurious, right? Good books, plenty of time and all on the boss’s tab. But time spent waiting is not really free, and it became unnerving to be so unproductive.

But that was the worst of it: I was bored.

Granted, my experience is limited to Van Nuys; I have heard horror stories about other courts. But for this venue, perhaps many more, I suspect that my experience was ordinary, even typical.

Trials of epic length and extraordinary circumstances raise equally epic issues. The O.J. Simpson case and others before it have pointed out some of the specific deficiencies of our system, and these problems must be addressed, and soon, by the rational, the cool-headed, the learned.

But the vast majority of cases are not epic in length and the issues raised, especially for jurors, are different. About 80% to 85% of cases tried in L.A. County Municipal and Superior Court last six days or fewer, says Gloria Gomez, manager of juror services.

So why, then, is the jury system “dangerously close to collapse”? as Judge Gary Klausner, presiding judge of the Superior Court, has said. Part of the answer is in the numbers: because so few people actually serve. And part of the reason they don’t is that they haven’t had to. In the past, the most likely result of tossing out an affidavit has been nothing. Sanctions have been nil.

Gomez says this is about to change. Finishing touches are being put on a program to send notices to errant prospective jurors and then fine them if they fail to respond. Indeed, the summons I received had this written on the front: “Your failure to respond to this summons will result in an order to show cause hearing before a judicial officer. At that hearing, penalties, including a possible fine of up to $1500.00 may be imposed.”

It’s a step in the right direction.

Improvements to ease hardships and make life more pleasant for jurors are necessary. And some of these changes, to the credit of the courts, have been instituted. (A colleague’s wife, for instance, was able to serve closer to home than originally assigned.) But if we are to restore credibility to this beleaguered system, the issue of who serves--and how often--must be dealt with.

Trial by jury--and jury duty--are basic to the U.S. democratic process. But a system in which so many of the people queried never bother to reply is a system unwound. Even in times of financial difficulty, such as L.A. County faces now, this critical issue must be resolved.