Slow Road to Jury Reform

The Los Angeles County Superior Court is the largest trial court in the world, with 238 judges hearing 7,000 jury trials a year at 15 branch courthouses. No other court comes even close to these numbers.

But the court’s size and the fabled litigiousness of Southern California continue to generate a gargantuan appetite for judges and jurors. Now, with a new state law requiring courts to move to one-day-or-one-trial jury service by Jan. 1, 2000, the Los Angeles court is caught in a classic chicken-or-the-egg situation: Court leaders say they can’t implement the new mandate because they won’t have enough jurors available for all the trials, and they point out that too many citizens already dodge jury summonses.

Local residents who know that the one-day, one-trial program works well in 21 other California counties will be even less cheerful about serving the 10 days required here. Under the new program, jurors not assigned to a trial on their first day of service are dismissed.

The Superior Court is expected to seek an exemption, as permitted by the new law, to delay moving toward the one-day, one-trial system. The California Judicial Council, which pushed the jury reform, should grant Los Angeles some time and flexibility and provide substantial funding to help in the transition when it happens. Money for extra staff and upgraded computers would be a good start.

Court officials contend that the pool of eligible jurors here--those who are citizens, proficient in English and with no felony convictions--is proportionately smaller than in other California counties. And among those eligible, many folks--the court says too many--insist they can’t serve because of economic hardship or a medical problem. The court has already begun to crack down on summoned citizens who provide less than solid-gold excuses, pursuing those who seek to evade their responsibility. That’s the right thing to do. Jury service is an obligation for all adult citizens.

Looking ahead, the court needs to think creatively about how it can comply with the law. Some judges talk of a hybrid plan that requires jurors to serve, say, two days or one trial. Such a plan might work, making available enough jurors to hear trials--110 in session each day in the downtown courthouses alone--while still cutting the thumb-twiddling and grumbling in jury assembly rooms across the county. What’s needed is the will to change.