How To Improve the Jury System (From Crime & Justice in America: Present Realities and Future Prospects, Second Edition, P 267-271, 2002, Wilson R. Palacios, Paul F. Cromwell, and Roger G. Dunham, eds. -- NCJ-188466)

• NCJ Number: 188478
• Author(s): Thomas F. Hogan; Gregory E. Mize; Kathleen Clark
• Date Published: 2002
• Length: 5 pages
• Sale Source: Prentice-Hall, Inc
• Publication Format: Book (Softbound)
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: This article appeared in the July 1988 issue and is reprinted with permission from The World & I, a publication of the Washington Times Corporation.

Annotation

This chapter provides an overview of the recommendations of the D.C. Jury Project (District of Columbia), with attention to peremptory challenges in jury selection.

Abstract

The D.C. Jury Project recommends that the quality and scope of the juror source list be improved and that comfortable facilities be provided for jurors. It further recommends that jurors receive practical training and easier access to information about the particulars of the cases before them. Many members of the D.C. Jury Project believe that peremptory challenges in jury selection should be abolished, and an overwhelming majority support their drastic reduction if they are retained. In the experience of most trial judges on the Jury Project, attorneys in both civil and criminal cases continue to exercise peremptory strikes in a manner that, at a minimum, suggests the appearance that prospective jurors are being peremptorily stricken on the grounds of race, gender, or both. If peremptory strikes are eliminated, project members advise that it is vital to improve the ability of courts to ascertain grounds for strikes of jurors for cause. Relevant information about jurors should be obtained by using a written questionnaire completed by all jurors and given to the court and parties upon the jury panel's arrival in the courtroom; further, each juror should be examined at least once during the voir dire process, and attorneys must have the opportunity to ask follow-up questions of all jurors.