NCSC Center for Jury Studies' report highlights challenges and strategies for the preservation of juries
The NCSC Center for Jury Studies has released Preserving the Future of Juries and Jury Trials, which provides a comprehensive analysis of critical vulnerabilities affecting the jury system and offers strategic recommendations to strengthen jury trials in the U.S. justice system. The report identifies four major challenges: enhancing public education and engagement, improving the juror experience, increasing the capacity and incentives for jury trials, and addressing disparities between jury system values and actual practices. Preserving the Future of Juries and Jury Trials outlines ways to ensure jury trials remain a cornerstone of democracy despite declining participation and systemic inefficiencies.
One of the primary concerns highlighted is the erosion of public trust in jury trials, driven by a decline in civic education and engagement. The report calls for courts, educators, businesses, and policymakers to promote jury service as an essential civic duty. Strategies include public outreach campaigns, employer-supported jury leave policies, and technological advancements like online jury orientation.
The report also addresses the declining frequency of jury trials due to plea bargaining and alternative dispute resolution, which has led to a generation of attorneys with limited trial experience. It proposes reforms such as increased funding for prosecutors and public defenders, changes to sentencing laws to reduce trial penalties, and improved trial advocacy training for new lawyers.
This report is available on the Center for Jury Studies website. To further explore these strategies, NCSC will be hosting upcoming webinars on juror engagement and best practices.
These sessions will provide valuable insights for court professionals, legal practitioners, and policymakers interested in strengthening the jury system. Register for the first webinar, which will take place on Thursday, March 20 at 3:00 p.m.
Expert testimony highlights the importance of jury diversity and fairness
In recent testimony before the New York State Franklin H. Williams Judicial Commission, Professor Valerie P. Hans emphasized the critical role of juries in upholding fairness and legitimacy in the justice system. She highlighted extensive research demonstrating that diverse juries enhance deliberations, reduce bias, and increase public confidence in verdicts. Her statement underscored the need for courts to implement strategies that promote broader and more inclusive jury participation.
Professor Hans also addressed structural barriers that can limit jury diversity, including socioeconomic challenges, language accessibility, and jury selection practices that disproportionately exclude certain demographic groups. She urged courts to adopt policies that ensure representative jury pools, such as improving outreach efforts and reducing hardships that deter participation.
The testimony reinforced that jury service is a cornerstone of democratic engagement and that courts must continually evaluate and refine their processes to maintain public trust. Her recommendations align with ongoing national efforts to make jury service more accessible and equitable for all citizens.
To receive a copy of Professor Hans' written testimony, email Jawwaad Johnson.
Juror honesty in the spotlight: Juror #2 and the real-world implications for the justice system
In a recent ABA Journal article, defense attorney Adam Banner reflects on the movie Juror #2and its portrayal of a critical challenge in the justice system: juror honesty.
Spoiler Alert!
The film follows a juror who gradually realizes he may have inadvertently caused the victim’s death in the case he is hearing. As the trial unfolds, he grapples with whether to disclose his potential involvement or allow the defendant to be convicted. Banner uses the film’s narrative to examine the real-world implications of jurors withholding information and the broader consequences for the rule of law.
Banner highlights the troubling reality that some jurors, despite their sworn oath, are not always forthcoming about biases or relevant experiences during voir dire. He shares professional experiences in which jurors admitted during trial that they could no longer be impartial, a moment of integrity that gave him hope in the process. However, he also recalls cases where jurors lied about their ability to follow instructions—such as the constitutional right against self-incrimination—only to later reveal that a defendant’s decision not to testify swayed their guilty verdict.
The article underscores the importance of voir dire as a safeguard against these risks, yet acknowledges its limitations. Banner argues that jurors’ reluctance to admit bias or relevant experiences jeopardizes defendants' rights and erodes public confidence in verdicts.
New twist on jury duty scam: Scammers pose as helpers, not threats
Jury duty scams are nothing new, but a recent case in North Carolina suggests scammers may be adopting a new, more deceptive approach. Rather than threatening victims with arrest, scammers now present themselves as helpful officials trying to protect individuals from potential legal trouble. Along with the recent rise in cases, the shift in tone underscores the need for courts and the public to remain vigilant against evolving scam tactics.
Phillip Oakley, a North Carolina resident, recently received a call from someone claiming to be a Guilford County sheriff's deputy. The caller insisted Oakley had missed jury duty and needed to act quickly to avoid serious consequences. Unlike traditional scams that use fear and intimidation, the caller expressed concern, repeatedly stating they were trying to help Oakley resolve the issue. The scammer mentioned legal letters, court appearances, and a potential conversation with a district attorney—all designed to overwhelm Oakley with plausible-sounding details.
Despite the caller’s convincing tone and the accurate use of Oakley’s publicly available address, the scam unraveled when the supposed solution required immediate payment of a $470 fine. Oakley, though briefly shaken, recognized the classic red flag and ended the call. His experience serves as a warning that scammers are becoming more sophisticated, using empathy instead of fear to manipulate victims.
Courts and law enforcement agencies continue to remind the public that legitimate jury service communications never involve unsolicited phone calls demanding payment. Individuals who receive suspicious calls about missed jury duty should hang up, independently verify court information, and report the incident to local authorities.
Resources for combatting jury scams are available in the NCSC Jury Scam Toolkit.