Juror studies show bias, discontent.

Results of two recent studies show that many potential jurors do not trust corporations, prefer their attorneys "boring," and do not like to show up for jury duty.

In the 2000 Annual Juror Survey conducted by the National Law Journal (NLJ) and DecisionQuest, a trial consulting firm, 76 percent of those polled agreed that "executives of big companies often try to cover up the harm they do." Twenty-eight percent said they could not be impartial if a corporate executive were a party to a lawsuit.

Three in 10 of those polled said that in order to send "an effective message" to a corporate defendant, a jury must impose punitive damages in the billions of dollars. Age affected this view, with 44 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds agreeing, and older and more affluent respondents saying that this high number was not necessary to send an effective message.

Almost two-thirds of those surveyed said they were aware that high damage awards are likely to be cut back by trial or appellate judges. The NLJ reported that some wonder whether this knowledge "permits jurors to award high verdicts on the belief that companies have a judicial safety if jurors go too far."

The survey also addressed juror attitudes toward attorney dress and behavior in the courtroom. Respondents seemed to favor modest suits, conservative hairstyles, and no flashy jewelry. Younger respondents were more open to less conservative looks. As for presentation, 76 percent said they would respond negatively to a lawyer who shouted at a witness to prove a point. Computer and video simulations were discouraged by 29 percent of respondents overall, with those 65 and older being about twice as technophobic as those aged 18 to 24. And while 23 percent said they would react positively to a few jokes in the courtroom, 38 percent said they would prefer a "no-nonsense approach."

Researchers for the NLJ and DecisionQuest questioned 1,000 potential jurors by telephone September 22-24, 2000. Results of the survey were reported in the NLJ on October 23 and November 20.

In another study, The Dallas Morning News focused on 13,612 people summoned for jury duty in one week in Dallas County to examine problems with juror turnout. The statistical study was a continuation of research by The News and the Southern Methodist University School of Law. (Judges Say Juries Are Not `Out of Control', TRIAL, July 2000, at 136.)

Researchers found that more than 80 percent of the 650,000 county residents summoned for jury duty each year never reach the courthouse. The reasons for the low turnout vary, according to the study. Because the computer-generated lists--compiled from voter registrations, driver's licenses, and state-issued personal identification cards--are only updated every six years, about a quarter of the summonses were returned by the post office. During the sample week, more than 1,600 people claimed a legal exemption or were disqualified, and more than 4,600 people, or nearly 70 percent of those who were not excused beforehand, did not show up or respond to their summonses.

As a result, those reporting for duty do not represent a cross-section of the community. Jury pools are disproportionately white, older, and wealthier than the overall population.

Researchers contacted many of the no-shows to determine why they skipped out. Many cited low juror pay, loss of income, and expenses such as child care and parking. Financial problems have the greatest impact on young people, those in lower-income brackets, and minorities. Hispanics may be underrepresented because of lack of citizenship.

Another frequent response was that the potential jurors just didn't want to serve and thought they could ignore the summons without consequence.

According to researchers, high absenteeism is creating lopsided jury pools that could be declared unconstitutional if challenged in court. This lack of balance also undermines public confidence in the jury system, according to legal scholars.

The problem is not unique to Dallas County. According to the National Center for State Courts, most states use similar systems to select jury pools and wrestle with equally high no-show rates. Proposed solutions include tougher penalties for no-shows, higher juror pay, a requirement that employers pay workers while on jury duty, and free day care and parking.

The complete series by Mark Curriden and Allen Pusey for The Dallas Morning News can be found at www.dallasnews. com/juries. The NLJ articles are available at www.nlj.com.

Please don't photocopy TRIAL

The Copyright Act of 1976 prohibits the reproduction by photocopy machine or any other means of any portion of TRIAL except with the written permission of the editor. ATLA members who want to reproduce one copy for personal use do not need permission.

If you would like permission to reprint a specific article, please write to TRIAL, 1050 31st St., N.W., Washington, DC 20007 or call [phone], ext. 216.