The Unintended Consequences of Jury Duty

With the El Chapo trial coming to an end, the participating jurors have even more reason for concern than simply their physical safety. (And perhaps the government has reason to fear ending up in court—a Toronto man sued the government following his PTSD diagnosis stemming from his service on a 2014 murder trial). Though anonymity may alleviate some fears of retaliation orchestrated by the cartel, anonymity cannot protect jurors from the longer lasting consequences of such prolonged stress and anxiety.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the El Chapo jurors are likely to experience symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) following their service. Jurors in similar cases often exhibit signs of PTSD like nightmares, intrusive thoughts, nausea, and high blood pressure. In fact, juror stress can be similar to the kind of trauma that first responders experience following a tragedy—both experiences are similar in their severity and duration.

70% of all jurors report feeling some stress. The greatest difficulty is experienced by those who serve on homicide and death penalty trials, largely because these jurors must confront the loss of life and impose guilt.

Despite knowledge that jurors, particularly those jurors who serve on cases involving graphic and disturbing evidence, frequently experience PTSD following their service, very few resources are available. Jurors receive virtually no preparation prior to witnessing traumatic evidence and no resources during trial. Some of this is due to the nature of the system. For instance, judges will not issue warnings about evidence because they do not want to influence jurors’ evaluation of that evidence. And counselors or other family and friends are not permitted to talk to jurors during trial because it may influence the decision-making process. Thus, jurors must process disturbing images and information completely alone. In this way, deliberation provides the only opportunity for processing and serves as a form of group therapy.

The federal government and some states have attempted to deal with the effects that jury service may have on jurors by providing post-trial counseling services. The federal government treats jurors as temporary government employees and so jurors may be eligible for six months to one-year’s worth of counseling services if the judge assigns these services. Only a handful of states offer similar counseling programs and those programs are not always mandatory because of the lack of funding available.

For example, Texas passed a statute providing for counseling in especially brutal cases. The statute permits county commissioners to establish counseling programs for jurors who serve on murder, child sexual assault, and child abuse trials. However, the statute does not provide state funding to support these programs. As a result, only a few counties—including Travis, Dallas, and Tarrant counties—currently offer any sort of counseling services to former jurors.

Considering the weariness surrounding jury duty that already exists, it seems that the courts must do something more for jurors serving on trials that involve graphic and disturbing evidence. Jurors are even less likely to want to fulfill their civic duty if they know they could suffer from PTSD years down the road.

For starters, the state courts must have funding to provide services to jurors who sit on particular types of cases or where a judge has authorized such services. Additionally, it seems that some kind of opportunity to discuss the case during trial would be beneficial for jurors attempting to process deeply disturbing evidence. Perhaps jurors could be permitted to discuss the case with their fellow jury members for the purposes of their well-being (rather than for decision-making purposes). Or perhaps a counselor could be made available talk with jurors—even if these counselors could only serve a listening function, this would be beneficial and certainly better than nothing.

The courts seem unlikely to adopt any reforms that permit jurors to discuss the case during trial because of its perceived possibility of interfering with decision-making, but at the very least jurors must be offered post-trial support. Particularly for those participating jurors without counseling services available through their own private insurance plans, these services are necessary to help jurors cope with the experience.