Round Table Discussion
Jury Service and The Jury System

A ll-star litigators, judges and corporate counsel debate the strengths
and weaknesses of the jury system


Round table Participants:

Moderator
Randall O. Sorrels of Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Sorrels, Matthews & Friend is the president of the Houston Bar Association. He is Board Certified by the Board of Legal Specialization of the State Bar of Texas in both personal injury and civil trial and represents plaintiffs in both commercial and personal injury litigation.

Brad Allen of Martin of Disiere, Jefferson & Wisdom is the 2005-2006 Editor-in-Chief of The Houston Lawyer.
Gaynelle Griffin Jones, Litigation Counsel for Hewlett-Packard Com-pany, has a docket that involves intellectual property, commercial litigation, and consumer class action cases. She has been a judge on the First Court of Appeals in Texas and United States Attorney for the Southern District, as well as a state prosecutor.

The Honorable Elizabeth Ray, Judge of the 165th Judicial District Court, Civil Division, Harris County, has been on the bench since 1992 and has been Administrative Judge for Harris County for four years. Prior to the bench, Judge Ray practiced approximately 14 years as a civil defense lawyer. She is Board Certified in civil trial.

Dick DeGuerin of DeGuerin, Dickson & Hennessy practices primarily in the area of criminal defense, both trials and appeals, in the state and federal courts, along with some civil work. He is Board Certified in criminal law.

Lyn McClellan is Assistant District Attorney for Harris County. McClellan has been a Harris County ADA for 24 years, his entire legal career, and is one of six Bureau Chiefs in the office.

Hugh Rice Kelly is currently the General Counsel for Texans for Lawsuit Reform and is a former General Counsel for Reliant Energy and a former partner at Baker Botts, L.L.P. At Baker Botts, Kelly handled both personal injury and commercial cases and was Board Certified in civil trial.

Dale Jefferson of Martin, Disiere, Jefferson & Wisdom is in charge of the firm’s trial and commercial litigation section and practices on both sides of the docket. Jefferson has handled numerous high profile lawsuits and has appeared on CNN, Dateline, Good Morning America, and the Oprah Winfrey Show.

SORRELS: Why don’t we talk first about statistics as to what percentage of people are showing up for jury duty here in Harris County.

JUDGE RAY: As we all recognize, there is a problem because it’s such a low percentage of turnout of the people who are called to serve on juries; and, so, we’ve been wrestling with this for a very long time. In fact, we commissioned a study three or four years ago from an expert in the field to look at what are we doing wrong, what are we doing right, and how to make it better. We actually have a pretty good system. It’s somewhat unique in terms of the way the rest of the country does it, but turnout is still low, which, in turn, is causing objections to jurors and to jury panels.

SORRELS: Of the people that have been charged with a crime, the statistics show that 50 percent or more are minorities. What do you see in your jury turnout, and how does that affect your approach to a case?

DeGUERIN: What we see is that generally the higher someone is in the socioeconomic scale, the less likely they are to show up. And whether that’s because of other important things they think they have to do or because they don’t have as much respect for the system, I don’t know what the root cause of it is. The other end of the spectrum is also not likely to show up. If you get somebody who is in and out of trouble, they’re not going to come in response to a jury summons. Of course, if they have a conviction, that disqualifies them. If they can read the jury questionnaire, then they won’t be there. But what that does is it kind of narrows down the jury pool to the middle of the socioeconomic scale. I don’t know whether that’s a bad thing at all. When you get to age, that’s another factor, I suppose, that shows the lack of turnout. The younger folks don’t come; and the older folks, who, of course, are exempt if they’re of the right age, don’t come. And, again, I don’t know that that’s a bad thing because it gives you the middle of the spectrum.
I like the panels that we get in Harris County. I think that probably where minorities are concerned, we get a smaller turnout of those summoned than we should. That presents a problem sometimes if you’ve got a client who’s on trial who is a member of a minority and you want somebody that can empathize with them, and you just don’t get enough people. The prosecution can find some reason to strike them, and they do. So if we’ve got a black client, we don’t have a very good chance of getting very many blacks on the jury.

SORRELS: Lyn, let me give you a chance to sit across the table from Mr. DeGuerin, as you have in the past, to respond a little bit from what you see from the prosecutor’s office.

McCLELLAN: One of the reasons people don’t come for jury service is that some of it is economic. They can’t afford to be off. In other words, if you’re working an hourly wage and if you don’t get paid by your employer, you’re not going to come down for jury service and then be told that you’re not going to be used and be sent home, just lose eight hours of work or whatever. Other people don’t come because I think they just don’t care. They really don’t care about the system, or what’s going on. And I think both sides really are looking for somebody that is somewhat what I call a stakeholder in the community. In other words, if you have a stake in the community and you live in the community and you want it to be good, then I think both sides benefit from the people who have a stake in that situation. I think a lot of people confuse a “jury of my peers.” That would mean, I guess, I should have a jury of 59-year-old lawyers who live in North Houston. No, I don’t think that’s what a jury of your peers means. I think there’s a cross section that you have to have, and sometimes you’re prevented from getting a cross section because the people don’t show up. If the low economic end of the spectrum doesn’t show up, then you’re going to lose a lot of minorities in that regard. If the high end doesn’t show up, then you’re going to lose a lot of professionals in that regard. But I agree. I think getting the middle of the pack, which are people that probably have some stake in the community, is not a bad situation.

SORRELS: Hugh, I think your organization is addressing the jury system in a different way.

KELLY: Well, let me sort of give you my own view; and, that is, that if you’ve tried cases, you’ll never shake the view that you want a jury. Now, that’s really my view. I’d much rather have a jury than a judge. And if a jury is selected and impaneled properly and the case is conducted well, I have always thought that you’d get a better result than any other way I know. So, I’m confident that we’re in favor of the jury system. The real question is: Can we get people in there that will listen to the case and do a good job? Therefore, our approach has tended to be issue oriented. For example, we filed a brief recently in the Supreme Court in Hyundai Motor Co. v. Vasquez, where there’s a case pending that has to do with how the voir dire is conducted. We don’t believe “commitment” questions should be permitted. These are questions that give the jurors a sound byte of three or four selected parts of a case eloquently spun from the standpoint of the questioner, to try to nail people the questioner thinks will not be good for his client. And, of course, every trial lawyer is not interested in a fair trial; trial lawyers are interested in their clients prevailing. And, so, the fact is we think that, for example, that kind of question shouldn’t be permitted. There have been some other kinds of issues where people say we’re not in favor of the jury system because the juries don’t have full range to do things. For example, in the medical cases, where the Legislature put a ceiling on non-economic damages. I certainly don’t think ceilings on damages as a general rule are a good idea; and it’s only a good idea if there is something terribly wrong with how some lawsuits affect society as a whole. So, that’s sort of the short version.

SORRELS: Let me ask you, Gaynelle, you have a lot of complex cases in which you may be on either side, depending on who gets to the courthouse first, such as intellectual property issues, patents, and sophisticated business disputes. Do you believe that the jurors that do show up are the best people to hear complex technical cases, and how do you ap-proach those situations?

GRIFFIN JONES: I think that for a company like HP, at least in my experience, we don’t take advantage of the jury system for complex litigation. The stakes are often too high financially. I think that also may be partly due to the fact that not everyone in our society is participating in the jury system. I think in the ideal world, if we had the higher end, as well as the lower end of citizens showing up, people who are businessmen and women who understand the impact, actually showed up on jury duty, it might be a different result. I’d just like to quickly comment, though, because the first question asked was, “What do you think about the jury system”; and being a student of the Constitution in college, I think it is by far one of the most important things we have in a democracy. We fought for 200-plus years. At the beginning of the system, only white males with property could serve on juries. We’re almost getting back to a point where only white males with property come to jury duty. And I think that the struggle with jurisprudence over the years, to open it up to minorities, African-Americans, to women, to make it more representative, that is really our goal. And I think our system would work better if we, in fact, had people that appreciated the importance of jury duty show up for jury duty. We could have the kind of dialogue we really want in the jury room, that many of us as lawyers are afraid to risk in the jury system the way it exists today.

SORRELS: Dale, you do defense work representing a lot of lawyers, and we’ve all heard that jurors often do not like lawyers as defendants. Do you find the jury system is intimidating for you and your lawyer clients?

JEFFERSON: Well, I have a couple of thoughts. I think, first of all, the biggest misconception that jurors have is the fact that they get selected to be on a jury. When I’ve been asked to speak on this issue before, I generally will ask for a show of hands and say, “How many of you people here have been picked to be on a jury before”; and all these people raise their hand. And then I say, “Well, you weren’t picked to be on anything.” The fact of the matter is we don’t pick juries. We get the first 12 leftovers. Both sides get their strikes; and the first 12 people that either are flies on the wall or otherwise don’t get picked; by default, those are the people that wind up on the jury. You don’t get picked; you get not selected. And, so, from my perspective, there is that delicate balance between, the overall notion of we need to preserve the integrity of the process, while simultaneously recognizing that no matter what side that we’re on, whether or not our client is a lawyer, an individual or a corporation, the fact of the matter is, as a trial lawyer, you know, we are duty bound to zealously represent our client; and certainly we want to take as much advantage that we can, during the voir dire selection process. Because, once again, we’re not there to pick anybody; we’re there to pick up the leftovers from those who we strike. And, certainly, I think there are some unique challenges when you represent lawyers in legal malpractice cases and the like; because I think there’s a perception out there that there is a different set of rules in the mind set of the jury that, well, if I was judging the standard of care of another individual, I would hold one set of views; but since this is a lawyer, even subconsciously, I think jurors hold a different set of standards.

SORRELS: Gaynelle, you have been on all sides of the docket, done criminal work, civil work, and complex litigation. What are your thoughts on how we get a more diverse group of people to show up for jury duty, whether it’s sending out the sheriff, which was probably done at one time when you were a judge, although not that much anymore.

GRIFFIN JONES: I think it’s a long-term type of approach. I think today what we might be able to do versus what we may be able to do over a long period would be a little different. Part of the reason might be lack of understanding about the importance of jury duty and how critical it is to citizenship. Democracy is not a spectator sport. It’s participatory. So, I think we have to educate the community about the importance of jury duty. The apathy that we see both in the courthouse and in the voting booth is evidence of the fact that we aren’t getting this message across. I think there are some financial hardship issues and maybe some language barriers. There may be some logistical problems in terms of such a large county, and people are afraid to go all the way downtown and don’t really know what jury service is all about. We should start long term doing some public service announcements and targeting our schools. We can use our Law Day program and do some things to get across to citizens that you need to be willing to serve on juries. I think that the average person has heard on the late night shows and even among lawyers the expression “You have got to be pretty stupid if you don’t know how to get out of jury duty.” People chuckle about it. We have to start changing that mind set plus include a little bit of enforcement, as well, in terms of consequences if you don’t show up.

KELLY: I have one point we didn’t touch on. Back when I was with Houston Lighting & Power Company, our experience was that people moved on the average of every two to three years; and it is hard to know what the current address of somebody is. I’ll venture that a large percentage of the no shows never got their notice.

SORRELS: The District Clerk’s Office says it has about 12 percent wrong addresses for people.

JUDGE RAY: I don’t know the most recent numbers of returns. One of the things we’ve been doing from the judicial standpoint is trying all different kinds of things like providing online procedures, so you don’t have to come down. You used to have to come down or at least call. Many times the call system didn’t work, you got put on hold forever, and people just got frustrated and hung up. The new Harris County Jury Assembly Room is going to be a huge help in this regard because when you come out for jury service, if you’re uncomfortable, if you can’t get to your computer, if you’re going to be stuck somewhere and you can’t get to a phone, if you can’t figure out how to get there, or even what the location is; you know, all those things cause people to say, “Well, I’ll go next time.”

SORRELS: Let’s talk about sending the Sheriff out for a roundup.

JUDGE RAY: That was Judge Shearn Smith’s approach; and he comes back from time to time as a visiting judge and makes fun of us for not arresting people. Just call me a cream puff; but I think the way you do it is not necessarily by punishing, but much more by encouraging. I think that’s why we have to increase juror pay. Many people can’t afford jury service. I think the second thing is we have a very strong responsibility to use them quickly and efficiently or release them. Putting them in the hallway and standing them up for hours, that’s just judicial nonsense.

SORRELS: Does the District Attorney’s office have any sense on the reason people don’t show up for jury duty?

McCLELLAN: Well, I don’t think either side of the Bar wants people there who don’t want to be there. That’s not going to be a good jury for either side. Somebody who, has been arrested and brought in is not going to be receptive to either side of the situation. Now, about the only thing you can do there, if you’re going to arrest them and bring them in, is to have them sit there and watch the trial during the whole period of time. I sure don’t want them in there voting one way or the other, and I sure don’t want us to go out and arrest them, you know, as the D.A.’s office. So, that’s not going to work.

JEFFERSON: They’ll be prosecuted by you.

McCLELLAN: I kind of like Dick DeGuerin’s idea that it’s a natural selection process, that people who don’t care just don’t show up. If they don’t show up, if they don’t care, we never got to talk to them; and we don’t want them anyway. They’re always going to be able to figure out a way to say something. Half the time a guy that’s getting ready to go to jury duty will talk to a lawyer and say, “What can I say to get off?” What can I tell him? I’ve had neighbors I would love to have as jurors; and they’re saying, “How can I get out of jury duty?” You shouldn’t be trying to get out of jury duty. You ought to be trying to come down and participate in the process. Because if the only people who show up are the people who don’t care, then that’s who’s going to be making the decision. Well, that’s a bad situation.

SORRELS: I’ve seen a lot of jurors show up unwillingly. They thought it was their responsibility; they thought there was a fear of being arrested or some other penalty would occur. After they get picked and serve on a jury, they say it’s one of the best experiences that they’ve ever been through. With that being one of the issues, maybe if we could just get people to show up, they’ll find it’s not such a bad experience; and maybe if there’s some arm-twisting, that might help the whole system.

GRIFFIN JONES: I think you’re absolutely right. The studies seem to indicate that once you serve and participate on a jury, you have greater respect for the system. I think that’s critical if you’re going to have buy-in in the community on the civil and criminal justice system. I think we have had in our history — I recall the Rodney King case where the community in the first verdict did not believe that jury verdict was proper. I think the problem with letting whoever wants to show up be on the jury in the long-term will result in people deciding or realizing if they don’t have to show up, they won’t show up and nobody’s going to come to jury duty. You don’t have to arrest them, necessarily. There are other incentives – fines, for instance. It has to be approached from a sort of a molding process to get the message across how important it is and that can be done in a variety of ways.

SORRELS: Are there any other counties whose approaches you like or dislike?

DeGUERIN: Judge Ray mentioned that we’re considering going online. I tried a case in Austin a couple of years ago. Austin has an online response to jury summons, and they get a large response up there. I don’t know if there’s been any comparative studies. (Austin’s) jury questionnaires are done online. You can complete it online or bring it in when you come. That kind of encourages it. I said that it is a preselection process, and I think it is. But you’re right, Judge Jones, that if people get the word out that there’s no consequence to not coming in, then who’s going to show up at all? I think we need to encourage citizens that care about their community to show up. How we go about doing that, I don’t know the answer.

JEFFERSON: To your particular question about other jurisdictions, what I have found in smaller jurisdictions is a greater willingness to allow the use of jury questionnaires. The biggest negative about the entire trial process is the rush, rush, rush mentality of we have to do everything quick. Well, I know these are some important limine issues; but we have 48 people sitting on a hard bench out in the hallway, and we’ve got to get moving. If we could do a better job and have more willingness to allow questionnaires to be used as we transition into our newer facilities and the like, then we could make it a smoother process. At the end of the day, no matter which side of the aisle you may be on, civil case, criminal case, what all of the lawyers want is as much information that they can get. What the trial judge and the voir dire panel don’t want, understandably, is their time wasted. One of the biggest wastes of time that I ever see is a jury shuffle. That’s just a disaster. You got to renumber everybody, so go back out into the hall. I’m sure everybody in here knows this, that under Texas law, if you use a jury questionnaire, then that counts as your jury shuffle. So, the utilization of a questionnaire automatically eliminates one of the biggest time wasters that you ever see, and that is the jury shuffle. And I think more and more with the advent of online information and the other information that we already have to share in terms of pretrial orders and the like, that we should consider coming up with a standard questionnaire that is approved by the trial judges. If the lawyers want to go beyond that, they can, to the extent that they agree on it. If they can’t agree on it, fine, we’ll use the standardized questionnaire; because more information in a democracy is never a bad thing.

DeGUERIN: If you walk into the court room and your jury panel’s sitting there, and the first row looks like the grand jury and the last row looks like your guy, you want a jury shuffle.

JEFFERSON: That’s right. Of course, you only get one shuffle.

DeGUERIN: That’s true, but questionnaires can be extremely useful to both sides. Whenever I’ve had a questionnaire and the prosecutor has given us some resistance on getting a questionnaire, invariably when the whole process is over, they’ve said, if they’ll be honest about it, “I got a lot of information out of that. That helped a lot.” I don’t think it replaces voir dire, and I don’t think it should. I think that a standard questionnaire is fine, but you need to fit the questionnaire to the facts of the case. It’s very helpful.

JUDGE RAY: I have a suggestion, because I think questionnaires can be very valuable. Judges are thinking, “How am I going to manage this time wisely?” I have got these typically big panels maybe 60 jurors sitting there, and now they have got to fill all this stuff out. You can’t just hand the completed questionnaires over to a lawyer; you have to give them time to digest whatever responses the jurors have made. You have to send the panel away, which means you have got to bring them back. That means 60 people are going to be mad at me, the lawyers, the system and the parties. That’s not going to work. So, my suggestion is: this can be done electronically. You can do jury questionnaires in a way that they can answer them electronically. That data can be zapped over while they go to lunch. Your computer guys could key in whatever buzz words you’re looking for and analyze all that, and we can all be back in an hour; and then we don’t lose a whole day. A lot of times it’s a weekend, because you’ll impanel them on a Friday and bring them back on a Monday.

DeGUERIN: The problem is that’s another pre-selection process, because a lot of people don’t use computers.

JUDGE RAY: We can provide them with computers in the jury room. I’m guessing the civil lawyers in particular would help fund that effort since it would save them so much attorney time.

DeGUERIN: I know, but a lot of people can’t turn them on. That might be another selection process. So, what’s wrong with having the jurors come in on a Friday, fill all that stuff out, give them to the lawyers to have over the weekend, and have them come back. So, they come back. It impresses on a juror, “This must be an important case. We’re going to have to come down twice to do this.” So, they’re going to be paying attention.

JUDGE RAY: You know, Dick, I don’t think on the types of cases that you’re dealing with, basically everybody in this room is dealing with, it’s probably not as big a problem; and I do it pretty routinely on my big cases. But if you’re talking about a jury questionnaire as a routine, basic, every-car-wreck, every-whatever it is you do in a small world, we can’t manage that because we can’t manage the jurors. And, regardless of the size of the case, judges are responsible for the correct use of jurors’ time.

DeGUERIN: I agree. And I think the realities of cases and the caseload that the courts have would take care of that, because not everybody’s going to want that. It’s only going to be the exceptional case that wants jury questionnaires.

GRIFFIN JONES: If you’re trying any kind of case and you could have a jury questionnaire, you’re probably going to want one. I’m concerned, however, about privacy issues. If we’re looking for ways to have more participation in jury service, there’s a lot of people in our community that need to understand that they’re going to be filling out questionnaires electronically; what’s going to happen to that data, how secure is it going to be, and all kinds of things. In this day of identity theft, it’s just one other reason why somebody might decide they don’t want to show up.

McCLELLAN: We do individual questionnaires on all capital cases. We go through and ask maybe 200-250 jurors, and jurors are concerned about what’s going to happen to that questionnaire. The procedure in Harris County is that these questionnaires are taken and destroyed afterwards, because, they’re putting out a lot of information. Some jurors are offended by too much.

SORRELS: Are there any specific examples of abuses in the jury selection process that you’ve heard and want to steer us away from?

KELLY: You hear that in certain jurisdictions in the state, people don’t believe that they’re getting a fair draw out of the county. Now, that may be just superstition, but most of the defense lawyers say you can’t get a fair trial in Beaumont. A lot of defense lawyers don’t believe that the jurors are being fairly drawn to the courthouse. Some believe that the clerks are telling defense jurors that they don’t have to show up. That’s probably just a myth. Still in all, defense lawyers don’t like to be in Beaumont, and they don’t like to be in the Valley. They feel like that no matter what happens, they’re going to get a jury that’s not fair. That’s what you really hear is the problem. You do see some isolated judges in the state who have such freewheeling voir dire and dismiss so many jurors that, at the end of the day, after you take away all the strikes and all the other things, the people that are left are people who have no opinions and no stake in society, who don’t care how the case comes out, and are easily led. Let me say I’ve never had that experience in Harris County. I’m telling you that, for Houston Lighting & Power we had good juries every time, and we tried more than 30 cases to a verdict over the past twenty years.

SORRELS: You mentioned the medical malpractice, and Lyn has mentioned the capital murder cases. How do the Texans for Lawsuit Reform answer the question, that while we have a jury that can take the life of an individual, they shouldn’t be able to decide the amount of damages an injured malpractice victim should be awarded?

KELLY: It’s the same answer as why we have workers’ compensation law, which has the same effect. The workers’ compensation law cut off the damages completely, except on a schedule; and the reason was not that it was fair, but that it was necessary; because, otherwise, it disrupted the industry, the workplace, too much. The report from the health industry – and they had their statistics and other people had their statistics – but if you believe, as we did, the health care industry, that they were really suffering badly and it was because of excessive verdicts; and if the choice is no medical care in the Valley for most people or medical care in the Valley but limitations on lawsuits, you’ve got to choose. We were not in favor of, and are not today in favor of, the practice of putting ceilings on damages arbitrarily until there’s some completely unrelated issue that says it’s the appropriate societal decision.

JUDGE RAY: The proper role of a jury is to do what? What kind of limitations are we going to put on that proper role? I think that’s why people who are troubled by tort reform are troubled by that, because it chips away at the role of the jury. It says you cannot go beyond this or that limit. Who sets the limit?

DeGUERIN: The right of the jury and the right of the litigants.

JUDGE RAY: Exactly. It’s debating why tort reform happened in the medical area and whether it’s proper or not; I think what’s troubled a lot of jurors, juries and lawyers is whether this creates a precedent. If you start with medical malpractice, what about some other cause of action or some other group of defendants? All of a sudden we won’t need the jury system anymore because everything will be regulated and statutory. I feel fairly strongly that this is not where we want to go. I don’t know specifically about the medical malpractice area; I can’t speak on that. If, however, we are in the process of setting a precedent of routinely limiting full jury participation then that troubles me. I want to make sure that our juries not only get the full and complete facts from both sides of the table, but that they are empowered to do, within reason, what the federal and state Constitutions mandate that they are empowered to do. We don’t need to and should not take that away from them.

SORRELS: Gaynelle, is there a position or angle that one of the major corporations in our community has on this issue of what we should allow juries to decide or not decide?

GRIFFIN JONES: Well, not from a corporate policy standpoint. Obviously, we do look at each case differently. We’re all over the country and the world and each jurisdiction is different in each case. When dealing with a product class-action case, we’ve had some success in trying these cases before a jury in some jurisdictions. In other jurisdictions, we’re a little less likely to want to go to a jury. So, I think we look at each situation and our facts and so forth. We’re certainly concerned with the bottom line, as would be any company in making sure that we don’t run into a situation where we’re putting ourselves at risk of a huge verdict that’s not supported by the evidence.

ALLEN: I want to give everyone a chance at some closing thoughts. And as part of the closing thoughts today, you may or may not want to address what message you would send to the HBA members that are going to read these comments. What would you instill in them to support the jury system or impact the things that have been discussed today?

JONES: I think we all, as lawyers, recognize that we’re officers of the court, and we should stop and think about the importance of the jury system and if we think it’s important, which I happen to think it is. I think it’s a critical foundation for democracy. So, to that extent, I think as lawyers we need to do what we can, where we can, as often as we can, in conversations, as well as in participating in Bar events, to encourage citizens, old and young, that our system just wouldn’t work without it. We need to be advocates for that and work with the courts to make sure the system works. It will help all of our cases if more people show up for jury duty, and I mean across the board, and whatever we can do individually and collectively. There’s a lot. We need to think about it and start working towards making sure the jury system continues.

McCLELLAN: I think jurors, once they’ve had the jury experience, are grateful for having participated in the process. They learn a whole lot more about the process by being in the system. If they pass that information on to others, then I think that’s a great way of getting out the information. People always question everybody, “How can I get out of jury duty?” What we have to impress upon people is that if people like you, me, or them don’t come down for jury service, then who’s coming down and what right do you have to complain about this verdict or that verdict or what did they do down there or what are they doing now? It’s on us. So, everybody needs to participate. It doesn’t take a long time. We need to be more respectful of their time, such as waiting in the hallway. I thought it was kind of odd that when Harris County was building the jury assembly room they charged jurors to park. Why are we charging them to park? People shouldn’t have to spend their own money to come down and do their civic duties. The rate has gone up to $40 a day. I think you have to continue for a second or third day before you get that parking money back. That’s at least something. It shouldn’t cost you money to be on juries. That’s one thing we can try to do to bring in more people.

JEFFERSON: We’re seeing a trend more and more away from trial by jury and into arbitration, and, provided that that’s done in an arms-length business fashion, I don’t have any problem with that. When it comes to juries themselves, I think that, as lawyers, we need to recognize that we have become a society of instant experts where most of the citizenry get their opinions from the talking head-instant experts on TV talk shows. The bottom line to that kind of stuff is that both jurors and the jury system and lawyers are a popular target on the talk show circuit. We need to be vigilant to stop the degradation of our profession in general and the trial-by-jury system in particular to attack by hyperbole where a McDonald’s coffee case in New Mexico, which was significantly reduced in damages, all of a sudden becomes a rallying cry for the need for change in Harris County, Texas. The fact of the matter is that during the course of our meeting today, we probably had some soldiers in Iraq who died defending this American jury system for the Iraqi people who are dying who want this system. We have nothing for which to apologize for practicing the craft that embraces this system.

JUDGE RAY: I think you’re very eloquent.

DeGUERIN: How do you follow that?

JUDGE RAY: That’s actually one of my favorite topics, which is we should not apologize for being lawyers. We should not apologize for defending the Constitution. We should not apologize for what we do. I echo what you say about what’s going on in New Mexico isn’t going on in Harris County. I agree with all of that. I think my particular answer to the question is we have to start early. It goes back to civics. One of the most important things we do at the courthouse is — and we do it almost every month — is we have classes come through; and we split them. We send half to the criminal side, half to the civil side. Then an hour later we switch. And we have them sit as potential jurors, as the judge; and we walk them through mock trials. We do that all year long, every month. The reason for that is to educate the children. This is an interesting system, and you can be involved. It goes back to being involved in your government. It’s your government. You’ve got to run it. I think maybe that would be my unique answer to “How do you get people interested?” I think you start when they’re very young.

DeGUERIN: Education of the general public on the importance of the jury system is very important; and we, as lawyers, can do that. Probably only five percent of the lawyers in Harris County have ever been in a courtroom. So, whom we’re talking to in our journal are those lawyers, for the most part, that don’t know much about the jury system. They need to know. They need to tell their friends and neighbors and those that come to them and say, “Can you get me off jury service?” “No, I can’t. Maybe you’ve got something to do you can get postponed for a couple weeks, but you ought to go do it.” And “Try it; you’ll like it.”

KELLY: I would suggest that we need to communicate to the people in a way we know that works, and we’ve got to talk to people. You can’t lecture them or send them a letter. Somebody’s got to get on television. We should get the Houston Bar or somebody on there to talk about serving on the jury. Because, as you said, Randy, once people have been through a well-conducted trial, they’re usually inspired by that. They see that it was useful and that it’s a good thing. They’re proud of it, even if they were sort of forced to be there. Most people look on it as being a potential ordeal where they’re going to waste a ton of time, be bored to death, and, at the end of the day, be sent home. The judges in Harris County have worked for decades to try to reduce the down time, but it’s hard to do. We probably do a better job than just about everybody for doing it for a massive court system. If we can tell the folks through television that serving on a jury is significant, meaningful, and attractive, and that they’ll be recognized and not have their time wasted; if we could do that in the same medium that all the advertising lawyers are using, we may find that we can get our message through. We’re not going to get it through letters and civic lessons that are boring. If we do it right, however, maybe the people would be a little more responsive.

SORRELS: Let me give a plea to the lawyers of the Houston Bar Association, that if they have more helpful ideas than the eight of us sitting around this table can think of, we’d love to have those ideas. Mayor White has recently recorded a public service announcement for jury service and if any of our lawyers have clients who would be a great public service announcement spokesperson, that would be recognized by the community, that would be willing to come out and talk about the virtues of the jury system, we’d love to have a different PSA that could be used to help generate public interest in jury service. I want to thank all of you all for coming and sharing your time with us this afternoon; you have certainly inspired me.

< BACK TO TOP >