Trolling for jurors.

Byline: The Register-Guard

A jury summons has a maddening way of arriving at an inconvenient time: You are snowed under at work and half your department is on vacation. Your child has an out-of-town soccer tournament that you want to attend. You are a grad student with papers that have be done by the end of the month. You are a senior whose volunteer shift at the local hospital conflicts with the time you have been ordered to appear for jury duty.

Then there is the hectic nature of daily life. Most people can think of dozens of things - jobs, errands, families - more urgent than serving on a jury.

Despite the inconveniences and frustrations, the majority of people summoned to jury duty usually show up at the courthouse - some grousing and grumbling, but nonetheless prepared to do their civic duty.

That's the norm. But last Wednesday, presiding Lane County Circuit Judge Mary Ann Bearden found herself facing a shortage of jurors - the result of an unusually large number of no-shows by citizens called to jury duty - coupled with a heavy load of criminal trials. That left Bearden with no option but to invoke a seldom- used state law and order sheriff's deputies to venture outside and summon citizens to immediate jury service.

Not surprisingly, the move upset many of those pressed into duty. As Bearden recalled, "I dealt with some angry people. They didn't think it was fair. And it wasn't."

If any of the jurors were angry with the judge or deputies, their ire was misdirected. The proper target was the 53 who were summoned conventionally but failed to show, creating the crisis that forced Bearden to send deputies trolling for jurors.

Those who didn't show up put personal convenience above a duty that can be traced back to the ancient Egyptians. The Magna Carta guarantees trial by jury. Article III Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states, "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury," and the Sixth Amendment requires that, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury."

Every person in this country has the constitutional right to a jury trial. Every person has the right to tell their side of the story to a jury of their peers - people who have sworn to be fair and impartial in judging guilt or innocence.

The three people whose trials were scheduled to begin that Wednesday were entitled to trials by juries, and that is why Bearden became the county's first presiding judge in more than two decades to order the on-the-spot summonses.

Bearden's action could be dismissed as the result of a "perfect storm" of an unusually large number of juror no-shows and a lengthy docket. But judges in other counties throughout the state have encountered similar situations, and with surprising regularity.

That's unacceptable, and Bearden and her fellow judges understandably are considering how to prevent a recurrence.

One possibility that merits consideration is to periodically issue orders requiring no-shows to appear in court to explain their failure to respond to their juror summons. Those lacking valid excuses could be fined and rescheduled for jury duty. Arrest warrants could be issued for the brazen few who might refuse to appear in court to explain their failure to respond to summons.

Juror no-shows also should be required to attend a Civics 101 lecture that would remind them of the importance of a responsibility intended to ensure justice for all citizens - even those who don't care enough to show up for jury duty.