Juror pay

[Norman Bernstein]

I noticed, in the news, that the judge in the massive civil suit between Apple and Samsung has authorized a pay increase for jurors; if deliberations go beyond two weeks, the jurors will get $50/day, instead of $40. The article noted that either amount barely pays for parking and lunch at the courthouse.

There's something wrong here. The lawyers arguing the case are probably billing at $500/hr or more. One might argue that they, being highly educated and experienced lawyers, deserve $500 per hour....

....but what about the jurors? They are being asked to make substantial decisions, with huge economic impact, on sophisticated legal arguments, voluminous testimony, stacks and stacks of evidence, etc... for at least the time they are serving on the jury, aren't they working every bit as hard as the lawyers?

Is that effort worth less than minimum wage?

(to be fair, SOME employers will make up the difference while an employee is on jury duty, but it is by no means universal).

I just got a jury notice. I get them every few years, although, so far, I've never been empaneled, and in the last 20 years, never even had to show up. If I did, I have no employer to make up the difference in my lost earnings. I might be able to argue hardship (although, if truth be told, I'd like to experience serving on a jury)

Is this right? Shouldn't jurors be made whole?

[Paul Pless]

nah they shouldn't be paid more, its a citizen's duty, kinda like paying taxes. . .

[Mrleft8]

I've sat on juries, and I've spent days on end waiting to be called, but at the end, just sat and listened to vapid small talk from other potential jurors, and/or soap operas on TV....
I brought bag lunches at first, but that wasn't a good idea, as there was no refrigerator available, and my lunches got warm and soggy.... So I started going out to the local lunch joints, but that was expensive. Parking was ridiculously expensive. All told, I'd guess that even being "paid" $30 a day (After the first 4 days which you are expected to foot the bill for yourself), I lost quite a bit of money..... And time.... And sanity....
If jurors were treated with the respect that judges demand in their court rooms, it might be advantageous to the judicial system in this country. You get what you pay for.... Right?

[BrianY]

Yuh, plainitiffs should be forced to pay jurors for their service, provide them with meals, housing if they're sequestered, bonuses for showing up, etc. . I'm sure that will have no effect on the jury's deliberations...

Serioulsy though, you can't pay jurors too much because of the obvious potential for conflict of interest among the jurors ("Hey, if I hold out and extend deliberations for another couple of days, I'll make enough money to buy that TV" ), you can't make plaintiffs cover the cost becasue it might impose a prohibitive burden and thereby deny them access to the courts, you can't make the jurors' pay contingent on the outcome of the trial for reasons that should be obvious and you can't increase juror pay at all without imposing more burdens upon taxpayers who are unwilling to bear additional costs or see resources shift away from other areas to pay for it.


I view jury duty as a citizen's obligation - payment to society for the right to live in that society. As such, it is a sacrifice that we all should be willing and required to bear. That doesn't mean I enjoy it, however.

[Bobcat]

As a practical matter, the low juror pay limits our local juries to retired people, the unemployed, and those who work for a few big companies that will pay employees even if they are on jury duty.

[hokiefan]

As a practical matter, the low juror pay limits our local juries to retired people, the unemployed, and those who work for a few big companies that will pay employees even if they are on jury duty.

It doesn't in Savannah. The judges don't really care if it creates a hardship for someone. I've been called 7 times, had to report 6 times, was on a jury 3 times. Never saw anyone excused for financial hardship.

Cheers,

Bobby

[Kaa]

"The problem with juries is that they are generally composed of the 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty." -- Anonymous

:-D

Kaa

[Norman Bernstein]

Serioulsy though, you can't pay jurors too much because of the obvious potential for conflict of interest among the jurors ("Hey, if I hold out and extend deliberations for another couple of days, I'll make enough money to buy that TV" )

Conversely, if you pay them below the minimum wage, then jurors accoustomed to earning a lot more would have an incentive to cut deliberations short.

, you can't make plaintiffs cover the cost becasue it might impose a prohibitive burden and thereby deny them access to the courts, you can't make the jurors' pay contingent on the outcome of the trial for reasons that should be obvious...

I would never advocate doing either of those things. Juror pay, as pitiful as it is, comes from the court budget.

....and you can't increase juror pay at all without imposing more burdens upon taxpayers who are unwilling to bear additional costs or see resources shift away from other areas to pay for it.

I'm willing to pay for the costs of a court system... part of which is making it possible, or at least, more likely, to have something closer to a 'peer' constituency in the makeup of a juror. If people can escape the obligation by claiming hardship, then the jury pool is already skewed.

I view jury duty as a citizen's obligation - payment to society for the right to live in that society. As such, it is a sacrifice that we all should be willing and required to bear. That doesn't mean I enjoy it, however.

There is a limit to how much you have to suffer from the experience, isn't there? In some cases, the hardship of serving is extreme... especially in sequestered juries, or in very long trials.

[hokiefan]

"The problem with juries is that they are generally composed of the 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty." -- Anonymous

:-D

Kaa

I resemble that remark!

I watched a guy clearly trying to get out of jury duty. Stated that he believed the prosecutor wouldn't bring a case against a potentially innocent person, so he would not be able to be an impartial juror. The judge told him to shut up before he found him in contempt for his obvious attempt to avoid his civic duty.

Cheers,

Bobby

[Todd D]

My wife was always able to avoid jury duty when she was working. Since then her former career pretty much eliminates her from being selected. She was a prosecuting attorney. In my case the Ph.D. tends to deselect me at least on the three occassions I have been called for jury duty.

[Norman Bernstein]

My mother always got out of it...not because she wanted to avoid it... but because she knew the DA personally... it's an immediate disqualification.

[Phillip Allen]

Yuh, plainitiffs should be forced to pay jurors for their service, provide them with meals, housing if they're sequestered, bonuses for showing up, etc. . I'm sure that will have no effect on the jury's deliberations...

Serioulsy though, you can't pay jurors too much because of the obvious potential for conflict of interest among the jurors ("Hey, if I hold out and extend deliberations for another couple of days, I'll make enough money to buy that TV" ), you can't make plaintiffs cover the cost becasue it might impose a prohibitive burden and thereby deny them access to the courts, you can't make the jurors' pay contingent on the outcome of the trial for reasons that should be obvious and you can't increase juror pay at all without imposing more burdens upon taxpayers who are unwilling to bear additional costs or see resources shift away from other areas to pay for it.


I view jury duty as a citizen's obligation - payment to society for the right to live in that society. As such, it is a sacrifice that we all should be willing and required to bear. That doesn't mean I enjoy it, however.

I agree with this... and I have been on several juries. I recommend jury duty as much as you can stand... it's valuable education and the cost is much lower than any other education you can possibly purchase

[Tom Galyen]

Free parking and meals would be nice, but the powers that be figure that you must pay do perform your civic duty.

[Rich Jones]

Being self-employed, jury duty was always a pain in the ass. Lost income, plus my customers weren't too happy when work on their house came to a halt while I was on jury duty. Luckily, I was never selected for a jury (although called about six times).

My wife, on the other hand, loved it. She was a teacher who got full pay and she enjoyed the experience. Once, she was on grand jury duty for a whole month. She had a grand old time.

I say just send civil servants and volunteers to jury duty. Civil servants get paid anyway and volunteers want to do it.

I've been through this too many times to get all gung-ho on the civil duty line.

[brad9798]

NEVER had to do jury duty! They never wanted to pick 'ME!' And that was just fine with me!!

[Meli]

Simple answer is to pay meals travel allowance for the first 4 days, then pay 65% of your AWE (average weekly earnings.) for 2 weeks, 85% of your AWE for longer cases.

Everyone should put in something towards JD as a civil obligation, but the burden in the current system falls heavier on the lower income sector.

The first 4 days can be taken form your sick leave or holiday leave credits.
If your employer does not pay sick leave or holiday pay, the employer pays you for the first 4 days.

[S/V Laura Ellen]

nah they shouldn't be paid more, its a citizen's duty, kinda like paying taxes. . .

Not when it's a pi$$ing match between Apple and Samsung. The loser should have to pay for compensation to the jurors. Both sides have the funds to drag this on for a long time, over an issue that should probably never made it in front of a judge.