Vol. 36, Number 11—November 2004

District Courts To Refill Jury Wheels

When the presidential election dust settles, it will be time for virtually every U.S. district court to refill its master jury wheel—a computerized list of thousands of names and addresses of people who may be eligible to serve as trial jurors or grand jury members.

Federal law requires new lists at least every four years, and nearly half of the 94 district courts have adopted the practice after each presidential election. About half the district courts refill their master jury wheels every two years, and a few update the lists every year.

Most courts enter into contracts with computer firms to create a master jury wheel. A district may have a district-wide master wheel, or have separate wheels for each division or combination of divisions in the district.

The Jury Act of 1968, codified at U.S.C. 28, § 1863-1878, requires each district court to have "a written plan for random selection of grand and petit jurors." The plan must include a collection of names "selected from the voter registration lists or lists of actual voters" within a district.

Names also may be selected from other sources, and 35 district courts currently use some other source, typically a state's motor vehicle records but also state-issued identification cards (for non-drivers) and tax records.

Just how a master wheel is constructed depends on how voting records are maintained. For some district courts, the only point of contact is the office of a state's secretary of state. But for others, corralling the list of names may involve contacting officials in scores of counties and towns.

After a master wheel is constructed, questionnaires will be sent to a percentage of those named individuals. A percentage of the "qualified wheel" names—those potential jurors deemed eligible to serve—eventually will receive jury service summonses. About one-fourth of the district courts combine the questionnaire and summons in a single mailing.

All three levels—selection of names for the master wheel, distribution of questionnaires, and dissemination of summonses—are exercises in random selection. While the courts' automated Jury Management System selects names for sending questionnaires and summonses by a purely randomized process, many courts have adopted what might be called a systematic approach to random selection for refilling the master wheel.

The systematic approach has a district court determining which individuals will be chosen by dividing the estimated number of names needed for the master wheel into the total number of names on the source lists to obtain a quotient—the number used in the random selection. For example, if it is decided that 8,000 names are needed, and there are one million registered voters in the division served by this master wheel, the quotient is 125. After a starting number from 1 to 125 is determined, that number and every 125th name thereafter is selected from the voter lists.

The number of names in a master jury wheel can vary greatly from district to district, but the Jury Act states that there must be at least 1,000.

The law also dictates that a court "shall ensure that each county, parish or similar political subdivision within the district or division . . . is substantially proportionally represented in the master jury wheel for that judicial district, division or combination of divisions."

The law allows a court to either authorize its clerk of court or create a jury commission to manage the jury selection process. Only the Eastern District of Louisiana retains a jury commission.

A Fulfilling Duty: Americans View Jury Service Positively

Contrary to what might have been expected, a recent Harris Poll shows that Americans are ready, able—even eager—to serve as jurors. And yes, they know what they're getting into. More than three in five have been called for jury service, and nearly half or 47 percent actually served as part of a jury. Six in 10 say they would participate again and, in general, those who served as a juror felt as confident in the justice system as they did before they served.

The study, conducted on behalf of the American Bar Association, was the result of telephone interviews with 1,029 adults, age 18 or older. Some of the survey results:

4 in 5 polled agree that jury duty is an important civic duty that should be met, even if it is inconvenient.

7 in 10 believe they know enough about the law or the legal system to be a good juror.

6 in 10 have no difficulty standing in judgment of others as a juror.

3 in 4 are not concerned about publicity they could receive by serving on a jury.

And finally, the ultimate test of faith in the system: if they were on trial themselves,

75% would want a jury to decide their case, rather than a judge.