Somerville's Sleeping Lands Him in the Slammer
After “extensive questioning,” Somerville had been selected to serve on a jury, but he soon found himself on the other side of the law when he overslept on the first day of the trial. The fear of repercussions and perhaps a burst of shaky twenty-one-year-old logic led him to not contact the court. For missing jury duty, Judge Kastrenakes found Somerville in contempt of court; he sentenced him to a ten-day jail sentence and a year of probation.The judge soon reversed himself completely after hearing Somerville's "admission of guilt and expression of sincere regret," but he stood by his initial decision to make an example of Somerville. This "example" involved a "traumatizing" ten night stay in a local jail for the young man, who had no prior criminal record. While the judge sought to distinguish this case from individuals who fail to show up for jury duty at all, he reiterated generally how jury duty is "serious business."
The public did not take this well. A petition emerged to remove Judge Kastrenakes from office, and Senator Bobby Powell both advocated for disciplinary action against the judge and sponsored a bill that would prevent just what had happened to Somerville.
Indolence: A Better Approach?
It seems like the other option besides sporadic, publicity-seeking scare-tactics is for jurisdictions to do...nothing at all. For Dallas residents, the Dallas County website provides guidance if something beyond your control prevents you from making it into court on your scheduled date—like sleep, for example.Here’s the gist: residents receive a two-week grace period to submit a “letter of explanation” to the Jury Services Department. However, if you miss that deadline too, the website suggests that you will just be rescheduled for another date and will receive a notification a few weeks before your next appearance date.
This relaxed standard seems to have contributed to the laughable eighteen percent of Dallas residents who appear for jury service each year. It is true that the alternative of punitive sanctions seems excessive—especially for those who receive the harshest consequences in order to serve as the annual deterrent for the rest of the community. However, don't non-diverse juries1 stemming from low attendance lead to an even greater, systemic injustice of depriving defendants of fair trials?
Looking to the Future
Deandre Somerville’s case reveals another valid concern: as a potential juror, Somerville had already been to court for the voir dire process. If we want to increase attendance percentages for jury summonses in order to achieve a jury that mirrors the community makeup, we should definitely not be punishing those who actually set aside their busy lives, follow the YouTube directional video to navigate to the courthouse, and sit sardine-style (maybe even without A/C) as they wait for their numbers to be called.If we make jury duty more enjoyable by making the process more efficient so jurors feel like their time is not being wasted--and maybe throw in some coffee and donuts--perhaps people will actually want to to serve. In turn, we can indirectly move towards improving the diversity of our jury pool.2
So no, you don't have to answer the call of jury duty, but it might make more of a difference than you might think.
1 ↩
As we read and discussed in class, research reveals how diverse juries are ideal as fact finders to "represent the various views of the community." Where potential jurors show up in low percentages, it is less likely going to be a jury of one's peers making the decisions. Neil Vidmar & Valerie P. Hans, American Juries: The Verdict 74 (2007).
2 ↩
I recognize this is only one of the many problems keeping individuals from their jury duties. Other issues, outside of the scope of this post, include lack of transportation, inflexible work schedules, and other socioeconomic barriers.
No comments:
Post a Comment