Public Notice Detail
Supreme Court Releases Juror Compensation Report
Posted: Tuesday, December 21, 1999
As a result of last year’s legislative session, the Supreme Court and CCJ were asked to study the state’s juror compensation system and make recommendations to state lawmakers. They were asked to evaluate per diem rates of compensation, reimbursement for special expenses, payment of jurors by employers, special compensation for jurors who serve on longer trials and other compensation issues identified by the court.
The Supreme Court contracted with the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) to evaluate the current state of jury management in Minnesota and appointed a Juror Compensation Workgroup to review the NCSC findings. The Workgroup, made up of District Court Judges, court administrators and jury management staff, also conducted a survey of Minnesota jurors to determine overall satisfaction with the current system.
The NCSC found that Minnesota is already a national leader in many areas jury management, and a vast majority of surveyed jurors reported that jury service posed no financial hardship for them.
Based on the recommendations of the NCSC and the results of the juror survey, the Juror Compensation Workgroup made the following recommendations to the Legislature:
Per Diem Rate – No adjustments to the current juror per diem of $30 per day are necessary because Minnesota already has one of the highest flat rate jury fees in the nation, and because nearly 8 out of 10 surveyed jurors feel jury service poses no financial hardship.
Reimbursement for Special Expenses – Minnesota is the only statewide jurisdiction in the nation that reimburses jurors for day care and support for this practice is very high. Although no changes in the current day care reimbursement protocols are necessary, jury management staff should encourage the timely submission of claims and review all reimbursement procedures to ensure they are processed in the most efficient manner.
Employer Compensation – Employers should be encouraged, but not mandated, to compensate employees who are summoned for jury service. Employees are protected by state law from termination or threat of termination for responding to a summons for jury service. In addition, two-thirds of surveyed jurors already receive the equivalent of a day’s salary for each day they report for jury duty.
Special Compensation for Long Trials – The number of jury trials lasting more than 2 weeks represents only 2% of the total number of jury trials in Minnesota. In addition, the type of financial hardship experienced by 3 of the 12 jurors in the Minnesota v. Philip Morris trial can be avoided by a judge’s proper use of protocols during jury selection. Therefore, because very few jury trials are sufficiently lengthy to warrant special payment provision, relatively few jurors suffer financially and fiscal hardship can be avoided by the presiding judge, no changes to the current juror per diem fee paid to jurors who serve on lengthy trials are necessary. However, court personnel should receive training on procedures for jury selection in long trials; a resource center should be established to provide judges with information on jury selection for long trials; and the CCJ should be responsible for monitoring whether any changes to address financial hardship are needed in the future.
Other Compensation Issues – (1) The Jury Reform Task Force (to be convened in early 2000) should explore the feasibility and fiscal impact of a One Day/One Trial jury system, as recommended by the NCSC. (2) Each county should include language on the jury summons that describes the option to defer jury service in lieu of a request for excusal from service. (3) Jury management staff should be fully trained in utilizing new jury software and be required to review its reports to insure jurors are used in an efficient and effective manner.
The Supreme Court has announced its intent to convene a Jury Reform Task Force in early 2000 to address additional recommendations from NCSC and conduct a more comprehensive review of Minnesota’s jury system. The task force will address such topics as uniform excusal policies, improved voir dire procedures, techniques to increase juror understanding (e.g. note-taking, submitting questions to witnesses), sequestration, juror stress and juror privacy.
The executive summary and full report are available on the state court web site, at: http://www.courts.state.mn.us/.