NCJ Number
49681
Date Published
Unknown
Length
85 pages
Annotation
PROCEDURES AND OUTCOME OF JURY SELECTION IN THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF YORK, ONTARIO, CANADA, ARE DESCRIBED, AND ATTITUDES OF JURORS TOWARD JURY DUTY BEFORE AND AFTER THEY SERVE ARE EVALUATED.
Abstract
JURIES FOR INDIVIDUAL TRIALS IN THE DISTRICT ARE CHOSEN FROM JURY PANELS WHICH, IN TURN, ARE SELECTED AT RANDOM FROM AN ASSESSMENT LIST OF CANADIAN CITIZENS RESIDENT IN THE TRIAL DISTRICT. ACCORDING TO THE JURIES ACT OF 1974, A PERSON IS ELIGIBLE FOR JURY DUTY IN THE DISTRICT IF HE OR SHE RESIDES IN THE DISTRICT, IS A CANADIAN CITIZEN, AND IS BETWEEN 18 AND 68 YEARS OF AGE. PEOPLE INELIGIBLE FOR JURY DUTY INCLUDE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, COURT PERSONNEL, LAW STUDENTS AND THEIR SPOUSES, LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL, LEGALLY QUALIFIED MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS, VETERINARY SURGEONS, AND PRACTICING CORONERS. CLERGY ARE EXEMPT FROM SERVING, AND PERSONS WHO SUFFER FROM BLINDNESS, DEAFNESS, OR OTHER SERIOUS INFIRMITY DO NOT QUALIFY UNDER THE JURIES ACT. A STUDY WAS CONDUCTED TO TEST THE HYPOTHESIS THAT PERSONS EXCUSED FROM JURY DUTY AND PERSONS ELIMINATED FROM THE TRIAL PROCEDURE DO NOT REPRESENT A RANDOM SAMPLE OF JURORS. TWO PANELS OF JURORS WERE CHOSEN, 275 JURORS DELEGATED TO PARTICIPATE IN DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS AND 220 JURORS DELEGATED TO SITTINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT. OF THE 275 JURORS, 247 ACTUALLY TOOK PART IN THE PERFORMANCE AND/OR ELIMINATION PROCESS. OF THE 247 JURORS, 129 WERE FEMALES AND 118 WERE MALES. OF THE 129 ELIGIBLE FEMALES, 47 OR 36 PERCENT WERE EXCUSED OR DEFERRED FROM JURY DUTY; 34 OR 29 PERCENT OF THE 118 MALES WERE EXCUSED OR DEFERRED. EXCUSES FOR DEFERRAL RANGED FROM BUSINESS ARRANGEMENTS TO WOMEN WHO COULD NOT GET BABYSITTERS FOR THEIR CHILDREN. THE FINDINGS ON BOTH DISTRICT AND SUPREME COURT JURORS WERE SIMILAR AND SUGGESTED THAT THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS WAS RANDOM IN TERMS OF SEX AND INCOME. THE PRIMARY HYPOTHESIS OF THE STUDY, CONSEQUENTLY, WAS NOT SUPPORTED. THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A JUROR'S FEELINGS OF FAVORABILITY BEFORE DUTY AND FEELINGS OF FAVORABILITY AFTER DUTY, INITIAL ATTITUDES TOWARD JURY DUTY WERE CONSISTENT BEFORE AND AFTER SERVING, AND JUROR FEELINGS OF INCONVENIENCE TOWARD HAVING TO SERVE WERE REFLECTED IN THEIR FEELINGS AFTER THE EXPERIENCE. JURY SUMMONS, AN ELIGIBILITY QUESTIONNAIRE, AND SUPPORTING DATA ARE APPENDED. (DEP)