JEM NEWSLETTER
◆
JURY EDUCATION AND MANAGEMENT FORUM
JAN 2002 ISSUE
JEM MISSION STATEMENT
The Jury Education and Management Forum is an organization for jury commissioners, managers and staff whose purpose is:
♦ Improve jury systems operations through the exchange of ideas and information.
♦ Provide continuing education and technical assistance to jury managers and support staff, and
♦ Support development of professional standards for jury system administration.
2001 JEM OFFICERS
President: Thu Nguyen, Orange County
Vice-President: Meredith Bostian, Sacramento County
Secretary: Marilyn Ashley, Marin County
Treasurer: Jeanne Caspell, Shasta County
Historian: Donna Hallett, Los Angeles County
Past President: Rex Warburton, San Diego County
MEMBERS AT LARGE
Fran Johnson, 2004, Los Angeles
Rose Hamblin, 2004, Kings
Zakiya Hooker-Bell, 2004, Alameda
Kathy Pinaglia, 2003, Nevada
Lynda Pierini, 2003, Madera
Nellie Jaime, 2003, San Bernardino
Guadalupe Castaneda, 2002, Santa Clara
Don Vera, 2002, Stanislaus
Helen Varela, 2002, San Joaquin
◆
COMMITTEES
By-Laws
Meredith Bostian, Sacramento
Sherry Caraballo Dorfman, Contra Costa
Frances Johnson, Los Angeles
Nestor Moto, Los Angeles
Thu Nguyen, Orange
Conference
Marilyn Ashley, Marin
Meredith Bostian, Sacramento
Lupe Castaneda, Santa Clara
Maisha Elie, Los Angeles
Nellie Jaime, San Bernardino
Thu Nguyen, Orange
Helen Varela, San Joaquin
JEM Achievement Award
Gloria Boytor, Riverside
Deanie Lindgren, Santa Cruz
Juror Appreciation Week
Carol Arconti, Los Angeles
Maisha Elie, Los Angeles
Manny Gonzalez, Riverside
Pebbla Wallace, Los Angeles
Rex Warburton, San Diego
Gloria Gomez, Los Angeles
Debbie Kiger, Los Angeles
Nominations
Gloria Boytor, Riverside
Frances Johnson, Los Angeles
Nellie Jaime, San Bernardino
Helen Varela, San Joaquin
Revenue Development
Carol Arconti, Los Angeles
Nestor Moto, Los Angeles
Kathie Pinaglia, Nevada
Don Vera, Stanislaus
Web Site
Pebbla Wallace
Rex Warburton
Zakiya Hooker-Bell
AJS To Establish New Jury Center
As part of its continuing commitment to strengthening the American justice system AJS has begun development of a permanent jury center. This new center would join the Society’s previously established centers for Judicial Ethics. Judicial Independence and Judicial Selection.
The idea for this new initiative got its start last winter at Jury Summit 2001, a nationwide conference organized by the National Center for State Courts and the New York State Unified Court System. AJS, which
participated in the conference work-shop for selected participants to discuss in greater detail the reforms that were highlighted at the summit.
“After two days of discussion,
deliberation and analysis, one of the major directives that came out of the group was that AJS needed to create an organization that would highlight and promote continued jury reform,” says Gordon Griller, Court Administrator of the Superior
Court of Maricopa County, Az., and co-chair of the Jury Center’s
Advisory Committee.
The jury center will provide a central place where anyone can go to find out what’s been done on a certain jury issue, according to Nancy King, Professor of Law at Vanderbilt University and co-chair of the advisory committee. “When it comes to jury reform, the courts are flying blind,” she says. “They don’t know how changes they make will play out, but other courts may have tried those changes and can give them some idea or how they worked.”
AJS is already recognized as one of the leaders in jury research.
The Society has previously done
Research on questions such as why people don’t respond to jury summons and how jurors deliberate to reach a verdict. The proposed center would extend those research efforts in a variety of directions.
“Courts would like to encourage
more broad-based, representative
Juries,” Griller says. “I would love to have someone do research to help me with this issue. Over 25 percent of the community in Maricopa County is Hispanic, but only 10 percent identify themselves as Hispanic when we do a survey in the jury room.”
In addition, there’s a need for
research that examines the effects
of system-wide reforms such as
changing the size of the jury,
protecting juror anonymity, and
removing the jury unanimity rules, according to King.
The center would also serve as an advocate for jury service and the jury system through public education and outreach programs to citizens, businesses, governmental bodies, and public interest groups.
“Jurors need a voice because
much of the research indicates that
the juror’s function in the trial itself has diminished as more powerful players like the judge or the lawyers move to center stage,” Griller says.
“In today’s world we want to engage jurors. We want to move from passive to active jurors because they’ll make better decisions, and in my opinion, that’s better justice.”
Perhaps no other organization is as well-positioned as AJS to tackle the issues of jury reform because the broad base of its membership includes many people not directly employed by the court system.
“This is not a top-down, state-driven organization, nor is it a federal court monopoly,” King explains. “It’s not just for judges or an advocate for trial attorneys. We are trying to reach out to all including jurors themselves, which is something that AJS can
do that other groups cannot.”
The following are members of
The Jury Center Advisory Committee:
Nancy King. Professor of Law,
Vanderbilt University, Co-Chair;
Gordon Griller. Court Administrator, Superior Court of Arizona, Co-Chair;
Judith Kaye. Chief Judge, New York Court of Appeals;
G. Thomas Munsterman. Director, Center for Jury Studies, National Center for State Courts;
Robert Boatright. Professor of
Political Science, Swarthmore College;
Miriam Shearing. Justice, Nevada Supreme Court and Chair of AJS Board of Directors;
John R. Tunheim. Judge, U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota and Treasurer of AJS;
Fern Smith. Judge, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California and Director of the Federal Judicial Center;
Kathy Clark. Council for Court
Excellence;
Mark Curriden. Legal Affairs Writer, Dallas Morning News;
Sheri Diamond. Senior Research
Fellow, American Bar Foundation;
Thomas Girardi. Attorney, Los
Angeles, California and AJS Executive Committee member;
Judy Chirlin. Judge, Los Angeles County Superior Court and AJS Executive Committee member;
Gloria Gomez. Manager, Jury
Services Division, Los Angeles
Superior Court;
Samuel Harahan. Director,
Council for Court Excellence;
Julia Hoke. Associate Director,
Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts;
Professor Stephen Landsman,
DePaul College of Law;
Gregory Mize. Judge, D.C. Superior Court;
Chester Mount. Director of Court Research, New York State Unified Court System;
Liz Rolph. Senior Political Analyst, RAND;
Julia Vitullo-Martin. Senior Fellow, VERA Institute of Justice;
Steven Zeidman. Director, Fund for Modern Courts;
Allan Sobel. Executive Vice President and Director, American Judicature Society.
(reprinted with permission from AJS Report for Memebers)
◆
PRESIDENT'S CORNER
As you know, during the past two decades, JEM evolved from an informal group of California Jury administrators meeting to discuss Jury procedures to a nationally recognized professional organization comprised of Jury staff from all levels and types of courts. The on-going efforts to accomplish this transformation are heroic, to say the least. Highest commendations and most sincere thanks to past officers and members who volunteer repeatedly to insure that you and I enjoy the benefits of being part of this great organization. To take their efforts one step further, the 2002 Executive Committee met in December 2001 and agreed on the following strategic goals for the coming year:
1. Enhance JEM’s organizational vitality through broader and more diverse membership, expansive participation in JEM governance and activities and the development of a network and a sense of unity between JEM’s active and associate members.
2. Develop a timely and solid forum for exchange of ideas and information by enhancing JEM publications and expanding the Web page.
3. Develop the leadership qualities of Jury managers and staff.
4. Create a procedure manual for use by new officers and committee members.
5. Coordinate informative and pleasurable Spring site visits and Fall conferences.
I am sure that, true to our “one for all and all for one” tradition, you and I will make all the above happen. So until next time, Partner,.... thanks and have a great new year.
Thu Nguyen
JUROR APPRECIATION WEEK
Second full week in May according to ACR 118
May 12 - May 18, 2002
WELCOME BACK
A special welcome back to Kim Taylor of the AOC. People do make a difference!
JURY CENTER
The American Judicature Society's jury center has received a grant of $300,000 from Good Samaritan, Inc. to support the center.
◆
JURY EDUCATION AND MANAGEMENT FORUM
SPRING SITE VISIT
April 12, 2002
Hanford, CA
About Hanford, CA
Hanford, seat of Kings County, is located off Highway 198. Surrounded by national parks, such as Sequoia and Kings Canyon, Hanford also boasts a historic and highly entertaining downtown. A walking tour will take you, among other sites, by the Opera House, built in 1893, the Carnegie Museum (1897, the Fox Theater (1929), the Antique Carousel (1939) and the China Alley (1890). Shoppers will delight in a variety of Antiques and Collectibles boutiques and find refreshments at restaurants’ sidewalk tables.
About the Spring Site Visit
Please note the different meeting locations.
April 11, 2002:
9:00AM: Executive Meeting - Comfort Inn Conference Room
1:00PM: User Group Meeting
JSI: Comfort Inn Conference Room
ACS: Jury Assembly Room - Kings Superior Court
April 12, 2002 - City Hall Traing Room 319 N. Douty St.
7:30AM -8:30AM: Registration
Meeting Locations:
Comfort Inn: 10 N. Irwin
Kings Superior Court:
1400 W. Lacey Bld
Government Center:
1400 W. Lacey Bld
8:30AM- 8:45AM: Greetings from JEM President and Court Executive Officer of Kings County.
8:45AM - 9:15AM: Business Meeting: Committees Presentations
9:15AM - 9:45AM: Guest Speaker - Justice Buckley
9:45AM - 10:00AM: Break
10:00AM-10:45AM: Panel discussion on Juror Confidentiality
10:45AM- 11:30 AM: Jury Fees Reporting
11:30AM-1:00PM: Lunch
1:00PM - 2:30PM: Visit of Kings County Superior Court
2:30PM: Adjournment
See you there!
JURY EDUCATION AND MANAGEMENT FORUM
2002 SPRING SITE VISIT
REGISTRATION FORM
KINGS COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
HANFORD, CA
April 12, 2002
Name _________________________________________________Title_______________________________
Court/County _________________________State ____________Organization__________________________
Address __________________________________________________________________________________
Tel _______________________ Fax___________________ E-Mail__________________________________
Conference Registration fees:
❐Member $40 if received by March 27, 2002
$50 if received on or after March 28, 2002
❐Non-Member $50
❐Please make check payable to JEM ( Fed ID # 95-4193180) and send with registration form to:
Jeanne M. Capell, Shasta Superior Court, 1500 Court Street, Room B-7, Redding, CA 96001
❐Questions regarding registration? Contact: Jeanne Capell - JEM Treasurer
(530)225-5645 or [email protected]
Hotel Information:
❐Comfort Inn
❐ Address: 10 N. Irwin Street, CA 93230
❐ Telephone number: 559-584-9300 - Fax number: 5559-584-0300
❐ $49.95 +Tax- single or double - Mention JEM -Spring Workshop for this rate❐ Hotel Reservation Deadline: March 27, 2002
❐ Need transportation from Amtrak Station to Hotel? Have questions regarding hotel? Contact: Rose Hamblin, Deputy Jury Commissioner, at (559) 582-3211 X 4205
Please complete and return by March 27, 2002 to:
Jeanne Capell, Jury Coordinator, Shasta Superior Court, 1500 Court Street, Rm. B-7, Redding, CA 96001
2002 SPRING SITE VISIT
KINGS COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
HANFORD, CA
DIRECTIONS
To: Comfort Inn, 10 N. Irwin, Hanford, CA 93230
From Los Angeles area: I-5-N
CA-99-N (Bakerfield/Freso)
CA -198 W (Hanford/Lemoore)
Take 3rd Hanford exit off 198-Redington
Take exit Redington Street towards Central Hanford
Go North on S. Redington
First Stop sign - 6th Street - Turn right onto 6th Street
Comfort Inn is ½ block on right side of the street
From San Francisco area: I-5 -S
CA-198 towards Lemoore-Hanford
Take exit towards Central Hanford/Douty Street
Merge onto 3rd St. - Stay in left lane
Turn left onto Douty Street
Turn left onto 6th Street
Comfort Inn is ½ block on left side of the street
Or you can take the train for a change:
Contact Amtrak at www.amtrak.com (1-800-USA_RAIL) to find out about the San Joaquin Line which will take you to Hanford.
Freddy the Fire Truck will give you a ride from the station to the hotel. Just make reservation with Rose Hamblin, Kings County Superior Court, (559)582-3211 X 4205.
From Comfort Inn to City Hall Training Center
(319 N. Douty Street, Hanford)
Take Irwin St to 7th Street
Right on 7th at signal light
Left on Douty St at signal light
1 1/2 blocks to Training Center
But if you need a ride, Freddy the Fire Truck will be available through Rose Hamblin.
◆
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUNDING AND COMMUNITY SUPPORT OF JUROR APPRECIATION WEEK AND EXTENSION OF APPRECIATION PROGRAM TO EMPLOYERS
Background
Juror Appreciation Week was declared to be the second full week each May by the California Legislature in 1998 as a result of a legislative resolution authored by Assembly Member Bill Morrow (ACR 118, Stats. 1998, ch.47). Orange County Superior Court led the drive supported by JEM. Juror Appreciation Week is recognized and supported by the Judicial Council.
The purpose of this program is to develop positive public relations with citizens who perform jury duty, and encourage participation from those who do not. The program seeks to remind citizens of the importance of jury duty and the vital role they play in our judicial system.
In an effort to take the program one step further, JEM recommends that courts extend thanks and appreciation to all identified employers who currently support the jury system. Those employers who pay their employees for jury service are making a significant contribution to the administration of justice. By acknowledging our sincere thanks and appreciation for their support, this event will promote statewide ( and countywide) recognition and hopefully encourage new participation.
Problem
Attempts to have the Administrative Office of the Courts provide uniform recommendations for a community-based funding of Juror Appreciation Week have been unsuccessful. Each court interprets “appropriate” community involvement differently. Some courts are presenting very successful, community supported programs. Other courts are not allowing jury staff to seek assistance from the community and the staff are providing the funding from their own pockets.
Action
The JEM Executive Committee appointed Rex Warburton of San Diego and Pebbla Wallace of Los Angeles to draft statewide recommendations for the funding and community support of Juror Appreciation Week. These recommendations are presented as a set standards that should be met by all courts and of alternatives that can be implemented to suit the needs of individual courts.
Standards
1. Jury duty is a right and obligation of citizenship.
2. Citizens should be encouraged to participate in jury duty by the entire community.
3. During Juror Appreciation Week, each court is obligated to recognize jurors and encouraged to acknowledge employers for their support of the jury system.
4. The funding for Juror Appreciation Week should be provided by the court and/or the community. It should not be provided by individual court staff.
5. Any requests for support outside the court should be presented as an opportunity to promote good citizenship with no suggestion of a quid pro quo.
1. Letters sent to prospective participants should offer the opportunity to participate and not ask for direct contributions.
2. Any goods, discounts or items normally sold or distributed by an organization may be accepted. For example: game tickets (baseball, football), amusement park tickets, museum posters.
3. Contributions from any organization should be limited to $500, except for Los Angeles which should be $1500.
4. Controversial items, politically motivated materials, or items that would reflect poorly on the court should not be accepted.
Alternatives
Following are funding and community support alternatives a court can consider.
A. Pay all expenses from the court's budget.
B. Approach individual businesses for support or in kind donations, mindful of Standards 5, 6,7, 8, and 9.
C. Partner with a business organization, ex: Downtown Business Association, Chamber of Commerce.
D. Partner with another public agency (Air Pollution Control District), semi-public agency (Bar Association, Bar Auxiliary), or service club (Rotary).
E. Partner with media organizations (radio stations, television stations, newspapers).
F. Support can also be in the form of lectures, speakers, tours from any kind of business or organization (Red Cross, United Way).
G. Justice agencies, such as the Public Defender’s Office, District Attorney’s Office, Sheriff and Police departments, can provide presentations on their role in the justice system.
Rationale for Partnerships
There are good reasons for seeking partnerships when court funding is not sufficient and the community is too small for direct approaches.
∙ It broadens the approach to a community approach.
∙ It removes the appearance of a quid pro quo.
∙ It introduces the court to a broad range of supporters.