Jury Policy Scholars Share Insights on Collaboration Across Ideological Lines
In “Truth and Civil Discourse,” part of Duke University’s The Chronicle's ongoing series “Virtues of Democracy,” two scholars with differing ideological backgrounds collaborated on a recent study at Duke’s Sanford School of Public Policy examining racial bias in jury selection.
Each researcher’s interpretation of the findings shaped their approach: one viewed unrepresentative juror lists as an outcome of systemic racism, while the other saw administrative issues, or "administrative evil," as the root cause. Recognizing both perspectives as valuable, they collaboratively crafted policy recommendations to improve jury representation.
By valuing each perspective, they found common ground and crafted a set of policy recommendations to address the diversity gap in juries. Civil discourse and collaboration across ideological lines can foster practical solutions for equity in the judicial system. The authors’ commitment to finding common ground rooted in truths strengthened their relationship.
Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America reflects the essence of jury deliberation as a crucible for civic engagement and balanced perspectives. Tocqueville observed that jury service "invests each citizen with a kind of magistracy," cultivating habits of deliberation and consensus building which democratize thought and reinforce community trust. This perspective echoes the article's focus on collaborative research, as the authors emphasize respectful, evidence-based discourse to address complex, socially relevant issues in jury selection and racial equity.
A link to the research of Pearson and Brook on jury diversity in Durham County, North Carolina can be found here: Racial Representation in Durham County Jury List
Juror Reflects on Jury Management Efficiency, Expresses Disappointment About Not Being Selected to Report in Monmouth County, New Jersey
In an article for New Jersey 101.5 My Uneventful First Summons Ever for NJ Jury Duty, a prospective New Jersey juror shares their first experience with a jury summons in Monmouth County, highlighting the anticipation of serving and witnessing the court system firsthand. They received the notice a month prior, completed an online questionnaire, and watched a video, but were notified daily via text and email that they weren’t needed in court. While disappointed not to serve, the author appreciated the county’s efficient communication, sparing them from unnecessary waiting.
Rather than sitting in a courthouse all day, the author commends Monmouth County’s approach, which allowed them to continue with regular activities until notified. They expressed gratitude for not wasting time and acknowledged that while they found it disappointing, others likely felt relieved. This experience emphasized Monmouth County's thoughtful handling of jurors.
North Carolina Transitions to Debit Cards for Jury Payments
WECT News 6 reports North Carolina is rolling out pre-paid debit cards for juror payments, replacing the traditional paper check system in an effort to streamline and digitize processes across the state. By October, over 30 counties, including New Hanover, Brunswick, and Pender, will adopt the new payment method, with plans for all 100 counties to transition by January 2025. Debit cards speed payment to jurors for service. Slow payment has been a perennial concern of jurors.
NCAOC Director Ryan S. Boyce stated that the change allows jurors immediate access to funds, enhancing efficiency and security. Jim Mixson, president of the North Carolina Conference of Clerks of Superior Court, added that debit cards make payments faster and more reliable for jurors, eliminating the wait for mailed checks.
For more information on the transition and general information about jury service in North Carolina, go to the North Carolina courts website.
Deliberation Begins in Retrial of Former Police Officer Brett Hankison, Who Fatally Shot Breonna Taylor
Jurors began deliberating in the federal retrial of former Louisville police detective Brett Hankison, who faces charges of depriving Breonna Taylor and her neighbors of their civil rights by firing into her apartment during a 2020 raid. Louisville Public Media reports, in "12 Jurors Looking at 12 Seconds": Jury Deliberates in Hankison Retrial, that Hankison’s defense argued his actions were a response to perceived threats amid chaotic circumstances, while prosecutors contend he recklessly endangered lives by shooting without identifying a clear target. Both sides highlighted training protocols, with the prosecution arguing Hankison violated these standards by "guessing" his target, while the defense maintained he acted within police policy.
This retrial follows last year’s mistrial, where a jury could not reach a unanimous decision. The current trial featured testimonies from witnesses describing the impact of Hankison’s shots, with some neighbors reporting lasting trauma. Jurors have options to convict Hankison on one or both counts of civil rights violations, a decision that will hinge on their interpretation of the reasonableness and legality of his actions during the raid.