Jury service allows us to participate in the governance of our community

Jurors have an opportunity to participate in the governance of their community.

The right to a jury trial is mentioned in our Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, yet the number of civil jury trials in our state and federal courts has declined, according to the new Civil Jury Project at NYU School of Law. This trend continues and threatens to increase.

The reasons for this decline are varied. But we’re all giving away our rights every time we sign or click to accept those consumer contracts that no one reads. Most of them say that we lose our right to a trial and instead must arbitrate any dispute.

Public indifference also places the right to a jury trial at risk. Forty-six percent of citizens summoned failed to show up for jury service in Harris County in 2014.

Why are we letting our civil jury system wither away? More important, do we collectively understand the harm we are inflicting upon our democracy? Lastly, do those with the power or authority to make a difference grasp the urgent need for reform?

Critics point to a host of issues with the jury system, including its cost and unpredictability. Jurors are sometimes asked to make decisions on issues far outside of their experience in cases involving science, medicine or technology, and large companies fear that jurors will be moved by sympathy or anti-business feelings and ignore the facts.

While jurors in theory should represent a cross-section of the community, experienced attorneys have refined techniques for selecting panels that may be biased in their favor. Too often, jurors feel that they are summoned to an inconvenient central location only to have lawyers and judges fail to respect the value of their time.

The virtues of the jury system outweigh any problems. In a country in which two-thirds of our judges are elected in partisan elections, jury trials provide a way for litigants to rise above the pettiness of bias potentially created by campaign contributions and to secure legitimate verdicts. In a survey of federal and state trial judges in Texas, over 98 percent thought juries did “very well” or “moderately well” in reaching “fair and just” verdicts.

Citizens should remember that jurors are typically asked to resolve issues of disputed fact, rather than interpret complicated laws. Experienced lawyers on both sides of the docket realize the effectiveness of using the observational powers of a group of attentive citizens to weed out the lies and exaggerations of those testifying.

The Founding Fathers viewed the jury system as a check on the arbitrary exercise of the power of the central government. Jury service also offers citizens an opportunity to participate in the governance of their community. Apart from Election Day, when is each of us able to participate so directly in public decisions? When state District Court Judge Randy Wilson talks to jury panels here in Harris County, he tells them, “Men and women have died for the right for you to be here today.”

Moreover, unlike decisions during arbitrations, judicial rulings on law during jury trials are the grist of the evolution of the common law. Jury trials can result in the public airing of facts. Consider how product defects may be divulged in trials but not in private arbitrations.

There are no quick fixes to restore the faith of the public in the jury system. Just as elected executive and legislative officials lead the other two branches of government, judges lead the judicial branch and should take responsibility for implementing reforms that use the time and collective wisdom of jurors more effectively.

Lawyers are also officers of the court and have responsibility for preserving the jury system. Some such as Houston’s Steve Susman have contributed to scholarship on the jury system through funding the non-partisan academic think-tank at NYU. Other lawyers who represent both plaintiffs and defendants may be in the best position to determine how to best make use of jurors’ time and how to ensure that the issues submitted to juries are comprehensible and fairly within the life experience of a jury panel representing a cross-section of the community.

Retail businesses have learned to treat customers as stakeholders by reducing wait times and locating facilities that are more convenient to those they seek to attract. Judges should take note and work to enhance the experience of their jurors. Certain judges allow jurors to ask questions, a practice that should be explored.

The ultimate responsibility of the jury system rests on qualified citizens. If most citizens called for jury service refuse to show up, they are in effect boycotting a system that ultimately is designed to protect the rights of all of us. A democracy would break down if no one voted. And the use of the jury as a check on potential corruption or abuse of power will be undermined unless a fair cross section of citizens accepts their civic responsibility and shows up to serve.