EDITORIAL : JURY CESS-POOL; SERVICE SHOULDN'T BE THE BURDEN THAT IT IS TO ORDINARY CITIZENS.

IN Los Angeles, justice isn't blind when it comes to jury service.

In an effort to force ``ordinary'' citizens to do their civic duty, the Superior Court is bludgeoning people with $1,500 fines when they ignore their jury duty summons.

``We don't want to anger potential jurors but there's an element of fairness,'' said Presiding Judge Robert Parkin. ``Everybody's got an obligation.''

It's encouraging that the county is moving toward implementing the one-day, one-trial law that takes effect Jan. 1, 2000 - a move that could help ease the juror shortage.

Beginning in January, the Superior Court will pick a few select areas around the county where people will be required to serve only one day for duty, unless the person is seated on a jury. The program should not only cut down on the grumbling of a few jurors, but also will allow the county to track how well it works.

It's a good first step. The one-day, one-trial bill that was signed into law this year by Gov. Pete Wilson was first introduced a year ago by former state Senate President Pro Tem Bill Lockyer, who was just elected the state's new attorney general.

But courts should not stop there at looking at ways to reform the system.

Instead of slapping fines on ordinary citizens, the courts should start making efforts at reforming the U.S. justice system.

For starters, some judges have suggested limiting to three the number of pre-emptory challenges, which allows lawyers to dismiss jurors without cause and forces a greater pool of jurors.

The California Judicial Council, which was behind jury reform, considered the three-challenge rule, but voted against implementing it.

Although the Sixth Amendment requires an ``impartial'' jury, the system seems stacked against impartiality. And it's doubtful lawyers want it. Why else would they spend big bucks on consultants to conduct focus groups and polls and shadow juries to weed out jurors who may not be predisposed to their client?

The irony of the U.S. justice system is that while court officials go to great lengths to find a broad cross-section of eligible jurors so that justice will be administered fairly, trial lawyers go to great lengths to exclude potential jurors so they can stack the deck.

If that changed, maybe ``ordinary'' citizens would feel their services were indeed needed and they weren't just pawns in a numbers game.

And is justice really served when the process of jury selection sometimes takes as long as the trial itself?

After watching what jurors were put through in the O.J. Simpson case and the first trial for the Mendendez brothers, the real wonder is that anyone in the county would return the notice to serve.

Maybe that's why of the more than 3 million affidavits the Los Angeles County Superior Court mailed out last year to prospective jurors, almost half did not respond, even though the law required them to.

Court officials know better than anyone that jury duty has become an odious task.

Just fining citizens won't change an out-of-control judicial system badly in need of an overhaul.

Prospective jurors should not be held captive in a system that fails to reform.