Part of being an American citizen is performing civic duties such as paying taxes and serving on a jury. Under the Sixth Amendment, those on trial is the United States not only have a right to a speedy and public trial, but they also have the right to be judged by a jury of their peers.
But many Americans don’t take jury duty seriously. Instead they view jury service as a nuisance or inconvenience, largely due to the fact that jurors make far less than minimum wage during their time of service.
Serving on a federal jury service generally pays $40 per day — $5 per hour — in addition to being reimbursed for transportation and parking fees, but many states, counties and cities pay jurors much less. Houston Municipal Court, for example, pays jurors about $6 a day. Washington state and Minnesota pay jurors $10 a day, which amounts to about $1.25 per hour. However, some states like Wisconsin pay jurors $30 a day.
Part of the reason that minimal pay for jury duty service is so concerning is that while employers cannot fire an employee for missing work while serving on a jury, they are not required to pay an employee for any work they miss. This lack of income is especially problematic for those who are paid hourly and can’t afford not to be paid, since their worries about their own financial circumstances can have a direct impact on a person’s right to a fair trial.
Concern about how an individual is going to pay their rent or other expenses while on jury duty results in many jurors anxiously worrying about their finances and when their service will end — instead of whether or not justice will be or has been served in the case they have been asked to decide.
On its website, the group Goodbye Jury Duty wrote, “Forced jury service isn’t just bad for jurors, it’s also bad for the jury system itself.
“People who are upset about jury duty are inclined to put in minimal effort, and may even try to undermine the process or rush through it. The dislike of jury duty is so widespread that there’s no way to filter out all of those people. Given that defendants’ freedom or even lives may be at stake, that’s a problem.”
For those whose service on a jury is not a pressing financial issue, the experience can be a bit enjoyable. As Matthew Yglesias wrote for Slate,
“I’ve been called twice, and both times was happy to go. All things considered, I’d much rather do my regular job day-in and day-out that [sic] do jury duty, but I do my regular job every day. I find that taking a day or two or three off every few years to go do something different is pretty fun.
“Is everyone else’s job really so amazing that they can’t bear the thought of a few days off to listen to testimony and pronounce on a verdict? I don’t buy it. I feel like as a society we’ve coordinated on a pointless anti-social norm that you’re some kind of sucker if you’re willing to just smile and do what the judge wants even though there are no really good self-interested reasons to want out.”
The idea behind having one’s peers decide whether or not a person is guilty of committing a crime was to ensure that a trial was fair and to act as a “safeguard against unwarranted interference with the rights and liberties” of the defendant.
To be chosen as a juror, one must be a U.S. citizen of at least 18 years of age and have lived in the judicial district they will be serving for at least one year. A juror has to be proficient enough in English that they would be able to complete a juror qualification form, have no disqualifying mental or physical condition, and never been convicted of a felony or currently be subject to felony charges punishable by imprisonment for more than one year.
Congress has created jury duty policy as well in order to ensure that a defendant who requests to be judged by a jury of their peers are actually given a variety of persons to choose from for the final jury group. “It is the policy of the United States that all litigants in federal courts entitled to trial by jury shall have the right to grand and petit juries selected at random from a fair cross-section of the community in the district or division wherein the court convenes.
“It is also the policy of the United States that all citizens shall have the opportunity to be considered for service on grand and petit juries in the district courts of the United States, and shall have an obligation to serve as jurors when called for that purpose.”
Potential jurors are chosen at random from a list of names that was compiled from voter registration forms and drivers licenses databases. If chosen, a juror is asked to complete a questionnaire to determine if that person is qualified to serve on a jury.
Impact of financial stress on a verdict
A few years ago, Bruce Watson wrote about his experience while serving on a jury:
“As the trial continued into its second week, things got tougher: One member, a therapist, started to feel the hardship of lost billings, while another grew heavy-eyed as her all-night hospital residence shift bumped up against her daytime responsibilities in the courtroom. One found out that her employer was docking her pay, giving her only the $40 per day that the state of New York requires.
“By the time we got to the jury room to decide the case, it seemed like most of us had an eye on the meter: After a few hours of argument, one juror joked that we might need to talk for another day before rendering a verdict. The room suddenly became very quiet as a soft voice replied ‘For real, y’all, I can’t miss another day of work.
“Within a few hours, we came to a decision. It’s hard to determine if the economy affected our final verdict, but I wonder what the rejected jurors might have contributed to the discussion.”
This financial hardship some jurors endure and the effect it has on the defendant is why some groups such as Goodbye Jury Duty argue that the current system is ineffective and needs to be revamped.
The group proposes that just like the government did with military service after the Vietnam War, U.S. citizens should be able to voluntarily enlist in serving on a jury. “To get people to sign up for jury service, they have to want to be picked for a jury. The way to make that happen is to follow the example of the military’s solution to the draft, and provide incentives” that would turn jury duty service into a “working vacation.”
Incentives the group recommends include better pay for jurors, bonuses for those who serve on trials that last for weeks, and providing childcare.
“Basically, it means kissing jurors’ butts instead of treating jurors like dirt, as they are now,” the group says.
Paying jurors a fair and reasonable wage is not only viewed as a way to help ensure that jurors focus on the case, but that they actually show up.
According to a report from the Ludwig von Mises Institute by Gary M. Galles, a professor of economics at Pepperdine University, the reason so many jurors are called for a particular case is not just about ensuring there is a diverse pool of jury candidates, but because many jurors fail to show up.
Galles argued that “if jurors were paid, attorneys would be pushed to use plain language rather than legalese to facilitate more efficient communication. Tighter time constraints would be imposed to force attorneys to make their points more quickly and clearly, and to avoid repetitive questions.”
By paying a juror a better wage, U.S. citizens would become more educated on the law, evidence and procedure, which Galles said would likely lead to a reduction in the number of mistrials and resources that are spent on ensuring jurors understand and follow the law.
Though the issue of unfair and minimal pay for jurors has been raised for years, as of now it appears the government — whether it be the federal, state, county or city level — has not shared any plans to change that anytime soon.