Jury duty hasn't gotten easier over the years

When I wrote about jury duty six years ago, my problem was that, as a stay-at-home mother and part-time freelance writer, I couldn't get anyone to take care of my children if I was called to serve. I was always the designated go-to mom for everyone else if their kids needed rides from school, but there was usually no one available if I was asking a similar favor. My husband is also self-employed and it would have been difficult for him to rearrange his schedule to get our children to and from school.

In my 2003 column, I said I just wanted my kids to grow up and then I'd be ready to do my civic duty.

I was wrong.

Last week, I was summoned for jury duty. My children, now 21 and 17, don't need me as much. The 17-year-old is legally physically disabled and doesn't yet have a driver's license, but she's finished with high school and will start college in January, so the timing of the summons was fine. Even though I'm still self-employed and have six freelance assignments on my desk right now, I thought it'd be OK if I got called to serve on a jury for a day or two. It might even be interesting.

I am not one for leaving my "comfort zone," even though psychologists say it is good for us. I didn't sleep the night before jury duty and my nervousness didn't abate on the way there at 7 a.m. from my home in Simi Valley, or when I walked into that jury room in Ventura at 8 a.m. I wasn't angry about being there — just incredibly anxious. I had a lot of company. You could feel the tension in that jury room.

A judge came out and gave us the usual pep talk about jury service. I'd heard it before, but I liked his explanation better because he gave a bit more of the inside scoop. Usually, he said, a case is settled before a jury is impaneled. Often, to hasten a settlement, a judge will tell the parties involved in the case that he will start bringing in prospective jurors.

The day I was there, the jury room was overflowing, and every group was called to a courtroom that was trying to impanel a jury for a lengthy trial. The judge told us that only legally defined hardships could be used as reasonable excuses for not serving — and that loss of income was not considered a hardship, unless the person losing the money was a primary wage-earner. After the excuses were given, it was pretty clear that some of the prospective jurors shouldn't have been called in for even a single day, and not just for financial reasons.

The jury services system is flawed. It's seen some improvements over the years and, certainly, the jury room has been made more comfortable for its occupants, but the fact remains that this form of "civic duty" is not a responsibility that can be borne by everyone, no matter the legal definition.

It's time to re-evaluate the system. Either we should go with a volunteer-based group of jurors able to leave their jobs for an indeterminate time with full pay from their employers, or there should be paid, professional jurors, employed by the county, who are trained and screened to work on juries and are either on-call to the courthouse or have a definite schedule.

The costs of such programs should be weighed against the current system, which, despite all the proclamations of "civic duty," really do end up being an anxiety-ridden time-waster for many who don't want to — or simply can't — be there. If I were on trial or involved in a civil litigation, I would want my case decided by people who were enthusiastic about serving on a jury and truly interested in the matter at hand.

— Wendy Dager of Simi Valley writes a biweekly opinion column for The Star.