What Is One Day One Trial and Why It Should Be Standard for All Courts

Photo by Timothy L Brock on Unsplash

One Day/One Trial jury duty service systems are becoming increasingly common across the United States. Dallas County, for instance, was one of the first jurisdictions to implement the system for jury duty[1]. It started even earlier in Harris County, Texas in the 1970s[2], but some jurisdictions had not implemented this system heading into the 21^st Century.[3] One Day/One Trial (sometimes referred to as ODOT) is a jury selection process where if you are not selected to serve on a jury the day you report for jury duty, you will be released to go home unless the trial court instructs you to return.[4] One Day/One Trial, and shorter jury services in general, can benefit both the juror and the justice system as a whole.

Benefits to the Juror

One Day/One Trial system benefits both employees serving on juries and employers. Employees will lose less potential income because they will have a definitive and shorter time frame they will be serving as a juror for.[5] Likewise, employers will have an easier time finding a substitute for that employee.[6] In this way, the One Day/One Trial system expands representation on juries by making it easier for everyone to serve as a juror because barriers like taking time off work and losing income are lowered.[7]

Jurors also benefit from the One Day/One Trial by having more opportunities to serve on the jury, which can be a positive and educational act of civil service.[8] A study done in the late 1980s showed that, while more people were significantly more likely to sit on only one voir dire in a One Day/One Trial system, there was only a slight decrease in the number of people who were selected to sit on a jury – meaning that more people overall had the opportunity to serve as jurors.[9]

Benefits to the Justice System

One of the primary benefits of the One Day/One Trial system is the increased diversity of jury pools that it offers.[10] As mentioned earlier, One Day/One Trial systems ease the burden of taking off work and allow more people a chance to be on a jury.[11] It also captures a broader cross-section of the workforce because it allows sets a certain time that potential jurors can schedule to be off.[12] A diverse jury pool and diverse juries are broadly recognized to lead to a healthier, fairer justice system.[13]

A One Day/One Trial system also increases the overall effectiveness of the justice system. First, despite some concerns from critics, One Day/One Trial systems have actually been shown to keep overall costs down and costs per juror down – even though more jurors are being summoned.[14] Costs are lowered both overall and per juror, because costs associated with summoning and training jurors are lower than costs associated with continually covering maintaining jurors who are serving, like parking or travel, food, lost wages, etc.[15]

But more than that, jurors have reported being more engaged and attentive during the process and are more likely to appear when summoned because jurors know they will only be held for one day or one trial.[16] While concerns over losing ‘veteran jurors’ have been raised in an argument against the One Day/One Trial system, fresh jurors are often less cynical, more cooperative, and approach trials they are placed on with a fresh perspective unaffected by the last trial.[17]

Overall, a One Day/One Trial system brings many benefits with it while having little downside. A One Day/One Trial system can increase diversity in the jury pool by lowering barriers to serving on juries, like lost wages and time. The One Day/One Trial system can also increase juror engagement and satisfaction during the process while keeping costs to the justice system down. The benefits stand for themselves, and every jurisdiction could likely benefit from using the One Day/One Trial system.

---

[1] Dallas County, Jury System, (last visited March 15, 2022).

[2] G. Thomas Munsterman, Evaluation of One Day/One Trial Term of Jury Service, National Center for State Courts (February 7, 1990) at 1.

[3] Hon. Jacqueline Connor (ret.), What One Day One Trial Means to You, CAALA Advocate Magazine (Oct. 2007).

[4] Dallas County, Jury System, (last visited March 15, 2022).

[5] Stephen Michael Tow, Fact Sheet: One Day or One Trial Jury Service, Judicial Council of California (January 2022; Originally created January 2016).

[6] Id.

[7] Terry F. Holtrop, An Evaluation of the One-Week, One-Trial Juror Term of Service for 17^th Circuit Court for Kent County, Michigan, Institute for Court Management Court Development Program (May, 2004) at 43.

[8] Munsterman, Supra at 3.

[9] Id.

[10] Holtrop, Supra at 28.

[11] Id. at 43.

[12] Munsterman, Supra at 5.

[13] Ashish S. Joshi and Christina T. Kline, Lack of Jury Lack of Jury Diversity: A National Problem with Individual Consequences, American Bar Association (September 1, 2015).

[14] Holtrop, Supra at 33-34; Munsterman, Supra at 10-11.

[15] Holtrop, Supra at 33-34.

[16] Holtrop, Supra at 40-41; Munsterman, Supra at 6.

[17] Holtrop, Supra at 40-41, 49, 53; Munsterman, Supra at 6.

Is Jury Duty Worth it?

A common phrase heard in the courtroom during jury selection is “Judge, I am a (insert profession here) if I miss a day or a week of work then (enter a multitude of consequences here), I must be allowed to be excused.” Many individuals feel that what they do on a daily or weekly basis is more important to society than the next person. Everybody understands the concerns related to jury duty: missed work, lost money, lost time. However, the degree to which all jurors suffer from this is lost on the average person who can only see the hardships that face them individually for their jury duty, and do not see the issues facing their fellow man who faces the same possible responsibility. One of the issues that faces those who are trying to escape jury duty is the fact that serving jury duty just loses them too much money.

The Texas Civil Practices & Remedies Code provides that a juror cannot be fired or face adverse action from his employer for going to jury duty, but it also does not provide for any additional pay from the employer for missed time due to jury duty. While a juror is paid $6 a day during the selection process and between $40 and $50 a day after being selected, if that juror was never selected, minimum wage would dictate $58 a day and the “average employee” makes $170.64 a day according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. These lost wages can be devastating for an employed worker, for every week of trial the average Texas employee will lose over $600. The monetary losses for small business owners, or others that rely only on themselves for their income, can also be catastrophic. For a small business owner, or a professional practitioner every day missed is not only lost profit, but also the possibility of lost future business.

But what can we do about it? One of the things that the courts try to do is take as much of the financial burden off of the juror as possible. The Texas Judicial Council had a subcommittee on juries try and tackle many issues, including the financial burden placed on potential jurors. The report pointed out many of the issues that existed in 2001, and many of their suggestions have been implemented in counties across Texas, such as parking reimbursement, mileage reimbursement, meals, and child care. However many counties have not followed the recommendations. Travis County in particular does not reimburse parking, nor does it provide parking spots near the courthouse, the travel to jury duty can be as daunting as missing time altogether. 

The expenses necessary to properly accommodate, and compensate jurors are too vast to accomplish what is preferred by the jurors. In 2009 alone there was an estimated 154,000 jury trials  just counting the jurors that actually served, that is between 924,000 and 1.8 million people that would need to be compensated further by the government. However, as noted in the A Report of the Subcommittee on Juries Submitted to the Texas Judicial Council, if we could do a better job educating the public as to what juries do and how it is our civic duty to serve, it would help to eliminate the disdain the American public has for serving as a cog in of the most important systems that being an American has afforded us.

Credit for Time Served: How Two States Compensate Long Term Jurors

The formal construct of jury service is built on a foundation of civic responsibility. People are legally bound to serve, but service, in theory, also fulfills the obligations under the metaphorical social contract.

For short periods, this may be a financially manageable model; when a trial starts taking weeks, negative impacts upon the jurors become noticeable and the model breaks down. The nominal amount jurors are paid, which on average is less than the federally mandated minimum wage, causes individual economic hardship on those selected when applied over a longer trial. At least this is the logic behind two state programs, described below, that aim to reduce or eliminate such burden on participating jurors.

The Arizona Lengthy Trial Fund

Codified in Arizona Code of Judicial Administration, the Arizona lengthy trial fund (ALTF) offers lost income replacement or supplementation to petit jurors in trials lasting more than five days. In Arizona, the standard compensation for a state or local juror is $12 per day plus a mileage reimbursement. Starting after the completion of the sixth day of jury service, the ALTF provides for a retroactive increase in juror pay. The increases takes into consideration some of the differing opportunity cost of jurors by scaling the available daily pay. Retirees and the otherwise unemployed received $40 per day plus mileage reimbursement; while presently employed jurors may received up to $300 per day plus mileage reimbursement. Jurors seeking the latter must provide documentation demonstrating their lost income before being reimbursed.

The Oklahoma Lengthy Trial Fund

Adopted by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in 2005, the Oklahoma lengthy trial fund (OLTF) is similar in nature to the ALTF. Like Arizona, Oklahoma state and local jurors are paid a nominal $20 per day plus a mileage reimbursement. Starting on or after the eleventh day of jury service, the OLTF allows for the pay out of replacement or supplemental wages of up $200 per day for the remainder of the trial. Unlike the ALTF, no added financial consideration is paid to retirees and the otherwise unemployed; however, any juror deemed by the court to be suffering significant financial hardship through participation is provided $50 per day, beginning the fourth day of service and concluding the tenth day of service when wage replacement kicks in. To receive such payment, the Oklahoma juror must file a form request for reimbursement.

Model for Improvement

No program is likely to eliminate all of the financial burden placed on jurors; however, the Arizona and Oklahoma lengthy trial funds are commendable efforts to bridge the gap. Both take into consideration programs employers may have in place to cover wages by only allowing for replacement wages. Neither provides for unimpeded additional spending on juries. The principles of the programs are repeatable.

Application of similar programs for federal, state, and local courts stands to benefit all parties involved. The monetary benefit to the jurors is clear but hopefully, they also come away with better impressions of the system. In a society that places a great emphasis on income as a metric of self-worth, it should be unsurprising that jury duty often evokes negative connotations. A more positive view of jury duty is a noble goal and could increase turnout, which in turn could provide a more varied juror pool and theoretically a better jury. Oklahoma and Arizona see the benefits; other jurisdictions should too.

Three Reasons Dallas County Should Pay Jurors and Venire Members More Money

1. Jurors and Venire Members are Grossly Underpaid.

According to the County Website, Dallas County pays jurors $6.00 for the first day and $36 for each additional day of service. Jurors are expected to arrive by 8:30 AM and will leave around 5:00 PM if they serve. That's about 70 cents an hour for the first day, and $4.23 an hour for each additional day. Contrast this with the State of New York, which mandates a flat payment of $40 per day, and an additional $6 if the trial lasts more than thirty days. Unlike other forms of serving, like joining the military or voting, serving as a juror is not optional. Dallas County should catch up and start compensating its citizens for their time.

2. More Jurors will Show if Better Paid.

Justice Kennedy in the majority opinion of Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 407 (1991), eloquently described jury duty as

"[P]reserv[ing] the democratic element of the law . . . . [and] for most citizens the honor and privilege of jury duty is their most significant opportunity to participate in the democratic process." (emphasis added).

Meanwhile, actual jurors described the honor and privilege of jury duty as 

"a day without pay, since if I'm not working, I'm not making any money[,]" and

"[Jury duty is] not only some eye-rolling bother but a potentially devastating fate to be avoided at all costs." 

Some may consider this a bit dramatic, but the results are clear. A study conducted by the SMU Law Review and the Dallas Morning News (Ted M. Eades, Revisiting the Jury System in Texas: A Study of the Jury Pool in Dallas County, 54 SMU L. Rev. 1813 (2001)) found that only 13% of jury candidates had a household income of less than $35,000 a year, while nearly 40% of Dallas County residents fit within that category. Id. at 1815. The same study found that of the 13,612 juror summonses sent out mid February of the year 2000, a whopping 11,398 failed to show for jury duty. See id. at 1814. And 44% of the no-shows, or about 5,015 people, had an annual household income of less than $35,000. See id. at 1816. Finally, the study found that 85.8% of those who attended jury duty received full wages for the missed day of work, while only 56.9% of the no-shows would have received full wages—meaning the no-shows were three times more likely to receive no wages for the missed day of work. Id. In short, many of the poor cannot afford to serve.

3. Jurors will Better Represent the Community if More of Them Show.

According to the US Census, an estimated 18.8% of Dallas County residents lived below the poverty line from 2008 to 2012. Yet these same individuals are unlikely to show for jury duty. Meanwhile, many in poverty face criminal charges and incarceration, in what Harvard Sociologist Bruce Western calls a 'Poverty Trap.' Although the 6th Amendment doesn't specifically provide a right to a jury among one's peers, it seems unjust to have a high proportion of poor peoples' fate determined by a disproportionate amount of middle class and wealthy people who can afford to serve. This apparent injustice may open up Dallas County to a potential lawsuit. Finally, paying venire members and jurors more is the right thing to do. People from different economic backgrounds will likely have different perspectives. Having a greater spectrum of views should diversify the jury pool, which could increase just outcomes for defendants in Dallas County. 

Paying jurors and venire members more money will increase the amount of poor people showing up for jury duty because it will allow them to afford taking a day off from work. Other counties and other states have already come to this conclusion. Dallas County needs to catch up.