JURY EDUCATION AND MANAGEMENT FORUM

There are two versons of the founding of JEM, both of which you will find interesting. The first is provided by Alice Jensen formerly of Kern County and the second by Ray Arce formerly of Los Angeles County. We thank them for their contributions.

FROM ALICE JENSEN TO JUDY MENDICINA

Dear Judy:

It was great talking with you the other day. Thank you for your call.

In regards to why JEM was started, you probably know just as much as I do. It has been 3 years since I retired, and, I did not take any JEM records with me except for the mailing list.

With this in mind, the following is what I can tell you.

Years ago, when Jeri Stevens, whose official title was Assistant Jury Commissioner of San Diego County, had a problem or question in her jury office, she would call Ray Arce, who, at that time was the head of the Los Angeles Jury System, and one of the most knowledgeable jury persons in our state. Upon his expert advice, her problem and question would be solved. They became fast friends, and formed a visitation team, traveling to counties such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego, sharing their knowledge about running a jury department with people who were in the jury business. Some of the smaller counties, such as Kern, San Bernardino, Orange, etc., were invited too; and sat in on these meetings. I personally (being new to managing a jury department), obtained a lot of help. I was very impressed at the capability of our leaders - Jeri was a genius at doing her orientation. Ray was a virtual walking encyclopedia when it came to jury law and the racial representation of jurors.

All this started me thinking. A lot of California counties, especially the teeny tiny ones, did not have the opportunity to obtain all this knowledge. When you are working every day, in a very busy situation, it is hard to have access to all that you should know to make your jury department what it should be. New laws had to be known; upgrading manual or computer systems had to be done; how to give a good orientation had to be known; how to communicate on the status of trials; how to deal with the public; how to work with judges; how to work with attorneys; how to work with staff; how to do all this on the monies allotted for jurors; how to handle representation of minor races on panels; the list goes on and on. I wrote to the courts, and\or jury departments of the 58 California counties, inquiring if they would be interested in forming a jury organization for the purpose of educating their jury department with new systems, orientations, summons, laws, etc. (top)

The response was good, and after several mailing contacts, an initial planning meeting was set for Kern County. As I recall, those counties present were: Los Angeles; San Bernardino; Ventura; San Diego; Contra Costa; Kings; Santa Barbara; Merced and Kern; there may be others that I cannot remember.

From this and several other sessions, we planned our organization. The name of our group speaks for itself: "Jury Education and Management". That is exactly what we are all about. A fall conference was decided upon to educate ourselves as to all of the aforementioned knowledge we should have. A spring visitation was decided upon to visually see how other counties operated their individual jury systems. Being that our state is so huge, Northern California and Southern California would alternate sites as to conference and visitation to aid jury personnel from all parts of the state to attend, and not be so costly.

The first fall conference was held in San Jose on Friday, for one day in 1989. The room was filled, and a lot of lasting friends were made. The first spring visitation was held in Contra Costa County in 1990, Friday also. Now, the fall conference has been extended from Wednesday afternoon through Friday morning. The visitation is usually Thursday afternoon and Friday.

A scrapbook has been made with mementos of each conference and visitation. The exact dates, locations, and participants can be obtained from this scrapbook; which, Judy, I hear you have. A JEM Achievement award has been established each year for a person who has contributed outstanding service to JEM. Nine people have had this distinction.

I can honestly say that I am so proud, for the work that all the JEM members have done to make JEM so successful.

I will be with JEM next fall, and I am looking forward to seeing you all again.

You are a great bunch of people.

Sincerely,

Alice Jensen  (top)

THE SECOND VERSION IS PROVIDED BY RAY ARCE.

JEM's Origins

People v Buford (May 1982): The Spark

Geraldine Stevens' first reaction upon hearing of a Northern California District Court of Appeals decision in the case of People v Buford was to find or develop an approach to challenges to the demographic composition of jury venires. As Assistant Jury Commissioner for the San Diego Superior Court, Gerry managed San Diego's jury system and was informed that local criminal defense attorneys might use the strategy employed in Buford to challenge San Diego's jury selection procedures.

Gerry contacted her counterpart at the Orange County Superior Court who informed her that the jury system in Los Angeles County was frequently challenged and might be the best source of information. Gerry's first and subsequent calls to Los Angeles proved to be more than she hoped for.

 After reviewing and thinking about the information and materials she received from Los Angeles, Gerry decided that other California jury administrators might also have responses or approaches to jury challenges and might need the information she had obtained. She called jury administrators in Southern California to assess the interest in a meting to discuss the Buford case.  (top)

The Initial Meeting

The Orange County Court hosted the first meeting attended by jury administrators, data processing, and other personnel from a dozen Southern California trial courts. Ray Arce, then Director, Office of the Jury Commissioner made the presentation and led the first workshop.

This meeting underscored and made clear to all present that jury managers must understand that all jury systems are connected and that procedures in one jurisdiction, if successfully challenged in the adjudicative process, can effect all jury operations in the state or the nation. Another valuable lesson was the need to fully prepare should jury operations be questioned during a trial.

Gerry recognized that not all of California's jury system administrators had the opportunity to participate in the first meeting. Therefore, that same year she arranged for a fall meeting in Northern California.

San Francisco Superior Court hosted the meeting with representatives from about fifteen trial courts participating. Agin Ray Arce made the presentation and led the discussion. (top)

The Pattern Emerges and Grows

For the next few years this became the pattern. Two meetings per year one for jury administrators in the southern part of the state and the second in northern California. The agendas for the meeting expanded and included issues of mutual concern.

Automation, a major problem for most jury administrators, excuse policies and procedures, forms design and other topics were added. Forms, printed materials, processing concepts and relations with jurors' employers were regularly discussed or special presentation topics.

The Move to Establish a Formal Organization

Budget problems in the later part of the 1980s and other factors reduced or eliminated staff travel funds in many California Courts. Gerry Stevens curtailed her involvement in the meetings she had helped established. Alice Jensen, Jury Commissioner, Kern Superior Court then took up the standard at Gerry's urging.

In 1988, a committee headed by Alice outlined a plan of action for establishing a formal organization of jury managers. That same year in San Jose, it all came together at the first conference. (top)

  A JEM had been fashioned for the benefit of all California!