REFORMS SHOULDN'T UNDERCUT THE CIVIL JURY SYSTEM.

Byline: Bruce M. Brusavich

THERE'S a joke making the rounds: ``The good news is, they finally caught Hitler. The bad news is, they're going to try him in Los Angeles.''

That joke reflects the public outrage over the verdicts in the O.J. Simpson case. Because of a highly atypical criminal trial, juries in Los Angeles and elsewhere are derided as ``out of control'' or ``just plain stupid'' - a ``problem'' that needs to be ``fixed.''

Frustrated cries for jury reform are often understandable - and often wrongheaded. Real jury reform would improve the process without tampering with the system; jurors would be paid more, jury duty would include services such as child care, and courthouses and jury rooms would be cleaner and safer.

Phony jury reforms pretend to streamline the system and save time and money - while undermining the very nature of the jury and the very fabric of our democracy.

All too often, phony jury reform proposals come from society's elite: the men and women with money and property who don't want anyone - especially ordinary people - interfering with their power.

These people are frightened by the very nature of the jury system, as they are by anything that puts power in the hands of ordinary people. Through the centuries, the elite - from King George's ministers to today's corporate CEOs - have supported jury reforms that are designed to take power from ordinary people and arrogate it to themselves.

It would be a tragic irony if public outrage over the bizarre Simpson criminal trial were to be manipulated by the allies of big business to change the jury system in civil cases so that more ``corporate criminals'' will go unpunished.

The civil jury maintains the bonds that hold society together, insisting on the mutual responsibilities we owe to one another. When big business or big government try to evade those responsibilities, the civil jury is there to restrain them, and, if necessary, to punish them economically.

Reforms that would weaken the civil jury do nothing but throw the scales of justice out of balance.

The most recent and highly publicized example of jury reform comes from the state's Blue Ribbon Commission. While some of their recommendations are worthy of consideration (such as increased juror pay), many of the changes the commission proposes would diminish the power of the jury and weaken the community's voice.

The majority of the commission members recommend reducing the number of jurors from twelve to eight in many cases. But Los Angeles is a highly diverse community, and civil juries should be a cross-section of that community.

A test of eight-person juries in Los Angeles by the National Center for State Courts revealed that smaller juries were less representative of the general population, and especially under-representative of minorities. Reforms that would limit diversity - the very source of conflicting ideas and experiences that help a jury come to the right decision - ought to be rejected.

Most of the commission members also would permit only three peremptory challenges in civil cases. Peremptory challenges allow lawyers on all sides to excuse jurors who might have an axe to grind or a hidden agenda - even a subconscious one.

For example, a business executive who feels that practical jokes and sexual banter is normal office behavior and no big deal should not be seated on a case involving sexual harassment or discrimination.

Peremptory challenges make for fairer juries; reforms that would make juries less fair ought to be rejected.

After all, it was a civil jury that took the Dalkon Shield off the market; a civil jury that protected babies from burning in flammable pajamas, and asbestos workers from being condemned to death by asbestos inhalation.

Civil juries have saved countless lives that corporate bean counters have endangered. Reforms that undercut the civil jury system ought to be rejected, despite the frustration and fear engendered by a few highly publicized criminal cases.

MEMO: Bruce M. Brusavich is president of Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles.