One fundamental foundation of the criminal justice system in the United States is the right to a trial by jury, but can a defendant get a fair trial if the "best and the brightest" potential jurors are excused because of their vocations, or simply do not show up for duty? This is the situation more often in the post-O.J. Simpson murder trial days, especially in larger jurisdictions.

To combat this trend, states are beginning to take a closer look at the Jury Patriotism Act, which is designed to make jury duty more appealing as well as make the penalties for not showing up stiffer.

Current Status

Many Americans regard a summons to jury duty as an inconvenience at best and a financial burden at worse. In most areas, jurors are paid very little, if at all, while they are serving on jury duty. For many this can be a burden, especially in trials that last for extended periods. Others have to use their personal leave or sick leave days to maintain their incomes while serving.

Jurors also complain about the lack of flexibility in when they can do their jury service. If the summons comes at the peak of their busy season at work, they have no opportunity to postpone or reschedule their service at a more convenient time.

An American Judicature Society study found that 20 percent of Americans on average fail to report to jury duty when summoned. In some urban areas, fewer than 10 percent of all citizens summoned show up for court when called.

Even when jurors do show up for duty, many are excused because of their professions and many others give false "hardship excuses." In some jurisdictions, this situation has become so pronounced, trials have been delayed or rescheduled and in some areas, judges have ordered deputies to round us "talis" (bystander) jurors, picking people off the street to fill out a jury panel.

Background

The American Legislative Exchange Council has proposed model legislation for state legislators to use as a guideline for passing their own Jury Patriotism Act.

The model legislation revamps the current system by providing for the following:

• Imposes higher fines and penalties for jurors who fail to show up. The law makes it a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail.
• Prohibits professional and occupational exemptions to jury service altogether.
• Strengthens the hardship standard to apply only to cases of extreme physical or financial hardship. It offers specific definitions of each and requires documentation of those hardships.
• Creates a "lengthy trial fund," financed by a small filing fee that would allow individuals who risk financial difficulty by serving on a jury to apply to the fund to receive the compensation they would have been paid while working.
• Protects a juror from losing vacation time and sick leave from their employer.
• Allows jurors one automatic postponement to schedule jury service around their personal schedule.
• Limits the service of any juror to one day, or one trial, during any two-year period.

Pros

Proponents of the Jury Patriotism Act say that it will help protect the right to a trial by jury by enlarging the jury pool. The Act will alleviate some of the burdens that make serving on a jury a hardship for many and provide a larger and more representative jury pool.

Kristin Armshaw, civil justice task force director for ALEC, says if states adopt the Jury Patriotism Act will advance "Both justice and fairness will be advanced. The legislation will ensure a larger, more diverse, and more representative pool of potential jurors. At the same time, it will make certain that all citizens share the responsibility of service equally."

"We feel, with the current situation where a number of states allow for professional exemptions, or do not have any rules about hardship exemption abuses, and also where people could potentially be waiting to serve on a trial for days, it discourages jury service, makes it too easy to get out of and really limits the jury pool," Armshaw told CNS News.

Cons

Opponents of the Jury Patriotism Act say the compelling jury duty by any law is just another form of involuntary servitude. In an article Use Market to Select Jurors, Dominick Armentano, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, says jurors should be treated like others who do public service work -- recruit them, train them, and pay them.

"Policemen perform all sorts of civic duties but they are not drafted; they are carefully recruited and paid. Telephone companies require that individuals climb poles and repair transformers; they train and pay the people that they need," Armamento wrote. Jurors "... would be happier and more productive, more capable of deciding technically difficult cases and the problem of juror shortages would be minimized as a result of tapping a more receptive labor pool that is paid a competitive wage for their service."

"A juror-hiring system is more consistent with common-sense notions of liberty and justice for jurors. After all, potential jurors are innocent of all crime yet, ironically, they are the ones deprived of their liberty and ordered to sit in judgment of those charged with real crimes," Armamento wrote.

Where It Stands

As of February 2015, 14 states have adopted some form of the Jury Patriotism Act, including Arizona, Mississippi, and Missouri. To date, the states with the new laws have higher jury participation than states without the laws.