Modern courts are evolving to address declining public trust and integrating new technology to better expand access to justice, but there still remain opportunities to improve jury inclusivity and juror experience
Courtroom settings are steeped in symbolism and formality — black robes, scales of justice, Latin phrases, and temple-like architecture — distinguishing the judiciary from the executive and legislative branches. Contemporary courts face the challenge of preserving this solemn decorum while addressing declining public trust, integrating new technologies, and expanding citizens’ access to justice.
The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated remote or online court appearances, necessitating clear standards for virtual decorum. While remote hearings ease logistical burdens like travel and parking, they often lack consistent rules across jurisdictions. Virtual participants must consider the angle of cameras, maintaining eye contact, how names and photos appear, and whether your background and ambient noise present professionally on camera.
Indeed, the digital divide in technological access and literacy became evident since the pandemic, with non-college educated men and seniors expressing the lowest comfort level with new courtroom technology.
Disappearing role of jury trials in court proceedings
While courts have made great strides to better prepare self-represented litigants and offer low or no-cost resources to judicial participants, one of the benchmarks of deliberative democracy in the United States has been steadily declining for decades across both civil and criminal courts: jury trials.
Jury trials have decreased as a means of disposition due to their cost, unpredictability, and time-consuming nature compared to arbitration, mediation, or bench trials. Plea bargaining in criminal cases, as well as mandatory minimum sentences, have increased defendants’ incentive to waive their right to a trial. In civil proceedings, binding arbitration clauses and maximum caps on damages also has reduced utilization of jury trials.
The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated remote or online court appearances, necessitating clear standards for virtual decorum.
Indeed, court systems seem motivated by efficiency — despite the fact that judges, attorneys, and participants believe that jury trials offer the fairest course of justice and are worth the additional time commitment. This trend persists despite the judiciary’s belief in the value of jury trials, a right that’s enshrined in the 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
For many Americans, participating in the jury system is the only interaction that they will ever have with the judicial system, and it often offers a chance for citizens to actively participate in the nation’s democracy. While the judicial branch remains the most trusted of all three branches of the federal government, trust dipped below 50% in 2022 in tandem with a decrease in the approval of the job performance for the Supreme Court. Young people, people of color, and non-college educated individuals are the least likely to trust that the judiciary operates in the best interest of the American people.
Historically, judicial systems and legal counsel have used legal segregation tactics and more recently, the voir dire process and peremptory strikes to hinder the participation of people of color on juries in the US. In several states, having misdemeanor convictions — or even a felony charge (not a felony conviction, merely a charge) — is substantial enough to preclude individuals from serving on a jury. Excluded jurors have limited remedies to argue why they should be able to participate as jurors. Together, these factors ensure that people of color who do participate in jury trials are less likely to have jurors who are also people of color deciding their own fate if faced with criminal charges.
Improving juror experience in courts
In addition to correcting historic inequities that have excluded people of color from serving as jurors, we know that elements of servings as a juror disproportionately impact lower income citizens. An estimated 14.4% of Americans are summoned for jury duty each year and 11 million report for jury duty. Improving the experience of jurors can help discourage individuals from removing themselves from jury consideration and ensure that more diverse audiences are represented in jury selection.
However, the number one complaint from jurors currently is the amount of time spent waiting for direction. Offering enhanced communication tools — such as online qualification questionnaire completion, online juror scheduling, text and call alerts — from the time of jury summons until the date of reporting can place more information in the hands of jurors. Further, using staggered jury panels or allowing remote appearances for voir dire (or jury selection) processes can improve attendance and reduce the burden on jurors.
The number one complaint from jurors currently is the amount of time spent waiting for direction.
Also, enhanced waiting room design for jurors with lockers, concessions, nursing rooms, and charging ports could improve the experience for jurors, ensuring that their wait be more comfortable.
Increasing per diem rates for jurors also reduces the pain of lost wages felt by hourly workers who sacrifice their wages when reporting for jury duty. The State of New Mexico has tied jury duty wages to the prevailing minimum wage, and Arizona allows for jurors to claim against their actual lost wages for jury duty, up to $300 per day. Creation of lengthy trial funds can also help jurors who face financial burdens in situations when trials span for longer periods of time than anticipated.
Lastly, it is critical that courts consider the public nature of juror’s identity in the day and age of social media. It is not illegal for counsel to review juror’s social media and internet presence during the voir dire process, and with the ready accessibility of court documents and proceedings online, jurors are more likely to have their identities exposed and experience harassment or threats to their safety. The State of Oregon has a provision that prohibits naming jurors in any court proceeding open to the public. Courthouse design can also take into consideration separate entrances and exits to ensure juror safety and privacy.
Enhancements in technology, courthouse design, and processes can not only enhance defendant and juror experiences but can also begin to correct historical inequities in the judiciary. The judiciary remains the most trusted of the three branches of government in a time of record distrust of institutions, but finding more ways to engage all Americans in deliberative democracy will only stand to further increase trust.
You can find more about what best practices courts and court administrators are using to manage AI-driven technology here.
