Commission Goes Too Far With Jury System Changes : Proposals could create ominous new court problems

The California Judicial Council’s Blue Ribbon Commission more than fulfilled its mission to suggest improvements in the state’s jury system. But the panel’s draft proposals, issued last week, are so far-reaching they risk creating new problems while trying to solve existing ones.

The O.J. Simpson trial was certainly a catalyst for this commission, created last December by the Judicial Council. To many, the length of the Simpson proceedings (nine months), the brevity of the jury’s deliberations (slightly more than three hours) and its verdict to acquit Simpson of murder charges demonstrate what’s wrong with California’s jury system. But problems with the jury system have been apparent for some time, in other big headline trials as well as in routine civil and criminal cases (in which, typically, the resources and the results couldn’t be more different than in the Simpson trial.)

So not everyone agrees on the system’s deficiencies. That difference in perception accounts for the free-ranging nature of the reform proposals and their troublesome implications.

Jury service is not what it should be. The pay is low, the conditions often terrible and in some counties, particularly Los Angeles, the term of service far too long. In response, the commission wants jurors to be paid more ($40 a day instead of $5 in L.A. County), offered free child care and treated more courteously. The panel also wants to encourage jurors to submit written questions to the court and provide jurors with a glossary of terms in complex cases.

These suggestions would draw a larger and more diverse pool of people to serve as jurors and help them deliberate in a more informed way. White collar and professional employees, the self-employed and stay-at-home parents have often been underrepresented on juries. Broader participation in the jury process by these and other groups, in turn, would ameliorate other perceived problems with the jury system such as seemingly inconsistent verdicts, verdicts at odds with the evidence presented or juries deadlocked by one or two intransigent and unreasonable jurors.

The commission proposes changes to explicitly address these so-called problems, and that’s where it goes too far. These recommendations include permitting 11-1 verdicts in all noncapital and life-in-prison criminal cases when the jury has deliberated at least six hours and permitting jurors to schedule predeliberation discussions. We agree with some dissenting commission members that these proposals unacceptably tinker with the trial and deliberation process. Moreover, absent empirical evidence to support claims of “too many” hung juries or “too little” deliberation, these changes could create ominous new problems for the courts. Predeliberation discussions might prompt jurors to reach conclusions about the case early and not carefully consider all the evidence. Elimination of the unanimity requirement could cause jurors poised to convict or acquit to disregard legitimate concerns raised by dissenters. Surely these are not the results the council seeks.

The commission will finalize its proposals later this month. Between now and then, we suggest that it narrow both the definition of the problem and the focus of its solutions.