
The concept of trial and judgment by one’s peers
dates back to 1215 and the Magna Carta, where the fiat of king’s rule was
challenged. At the time the definition
of what constituted one’s peers was pretty clean cut: a wealthy land Baron. Today, the strata of peer definition is a
little more complicated. In California,
or at least in Orange County, we attempt to select a jury of peers by a process
that resulted in Mary travelling to Santa Ana at 6:30 AM to sit in a large room
with 300 other people, similarly summoned, they spend literally the whole day,
waiting to be called, interviewed, and potentially asked to sit in a panel for
as many days as required to hear testimony and make judgment on some infraction
of law.
The rules governing who gets called and how often
have changed little in the thirty some years I have lived in Orange
County. Names are chosen at random from
DMV records or voting records; frequency is supposedly no oftener than eighteen
months, which was Mary’s most recent interval, but I have only been called
three times in thirty years, possibly attributable to the fact I still wear a
suit and my Nixon pin when I show up.
Excuses are liberally given for planned vacations, employment that
precludes absence, or military service, but result in an accelerated recall for
duty.

The thing I find most troubling about the process is
its inefficiency. When I was last called
I was given a group number and could call in to see whether I would even have
to appear. That option seems to have
disappeared. One would think that in
this day when virtually everyone has access to a Smart Phone that a selection
system could be devised that would virtually eliminate the need for a cattle
call appearance at a court house. Almost
all of my business meetings are now held by conference calls, some with virtual,
visual presence. Even the actual
interview process could be remote, including seeing how a prospective jury
member reacts to questioning.
It’s not so much the cost to taxpayers by the
process as it is the loss of productivity.
Perhaps, instead of bringing reading material, or even laptops or tablets
to do some work while waiting, there could be a collective process of food
distribution or filing court documents: something that would gainfully use the
labor force gathered at the court house.
While I don’t really expect a change, just venting
about this makes me feel better. I
wonder if other states have addressed and improved the process.
Vacation took me away from my regular schedule of
posts. I have in mind a timely one for
next time, the passing of a true hero at the age of 97: Louis Zamperini. Even if you are familiar with his story, you
may find some twists in my post. Please
look for it in about a week.
No comments:
Post a Comment