You guys in Ohio are getting rich. Here in North Carolina they pay the princely sum of $10.00 per day for jury duty.

jhbohon@yahoo.com

Now that you mention it, I believe Tennessee does allow for a reply by letter in cases of medical necessity or other very restricted situations.

As for jury pay, Tennessee also pays only $25 a day. The low pay/compensation for jurors is a problem recognized by many in the courts, but the fact is that there is no extra money available from the states in most cases. At the least, the daily compensation ought to be based on the average daily earnings of an hourly worker, based on the median income for that particular state.

The point is to compensate the juror for the costs incurred during their court service, not to pay them what they might have made if they were at work instead of being in court.

awalker2002@comcast.net

John, you just made me feel a little better. Last time I was called for jury duty in Chattanooga, the daily compensation was $25.

awalker2002@comcast.net

Here in central Pennsylvania, it's $9 a day. During the summer, the judge had to send the sheriff out to find jurors because so many ignored their summons. They were going in the front door at WalMart and people were sneaking out the back! I'm fortunate. My employer pays my salary when/if I serve, although I am required to sign over my jury duty check in return.

K4s1361@hotmail.com

My
> employer pays my salary when/if I serve,
> although I am required to sign over my jury
> duty check in return.

I think that employers should be required to pay for these days similiar to holiday pay. If I was an hourly worker making $15/hour, why on earth would I go sit on a jury for $9 a DAY instead? Sure, we should all have the experience, but for any working person, it just isn't going to pay the bills as most of us are not independently wealthy.

> One problem with the jury system is the
> appauling low pay.

I hate to be polyannish, but there should be NO financial incentive to serve. You have a constitutional right to a jury of your peers-not paid decision makers. If you'd like to see professional "jurors" in action, deal with the any administrative agency. They have no mercy, and without mercy, there's no justice. By logical extension, should we pay (explicitly, instead of handing goodies to distinct demographic groups as we do now) you for voting? This is an obligation of citizenship, not arm's length transaction.

That having been said-the hardship would be lessened if took the right to a speedy trial seriously.

superheater@beer.com

The jury compensation system is not an incentive for people to serve, nor should it be. It was intended to serve as a stipend to reimburse the juror for expenses incurred while serving.

As for speedy trials, maybe some of the states should look at the federal courts as a role model in this area. Federal law, specifically the Speedy Trial Act mandates that a person who is arrested on a federal charge must be brought to trial no more than seventy calander days after their initial appearance. Compared to the way that many state courts are run, that's really speedy. However, many defendants who initially plead innocent change their plea and are rearraigned, eliminating the need for a trial. Most cases that do go to trial only run for two or three days at most. The only type of jury duty that is long term is the grand jury. Most grand juries are impaneled for terms that can vary from two to six months, depending on the jurisdiction. The difference is that the grand jurors only meet twice a month to hear cases unless a special session of the grand jury is ordered by the presiding judge. Other than that, they have very little disruption in their daily activities.

awalker2002@comcast.net

Here's an idea: The attorney who does not prevail personally pays the jurors what they would have earned. It would be great incentive to settle out of court and not clog the system with weak cases.

dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

> Here's an idea: The attorney who does not
> prevail personally pays the jurors what they
> would have earned. It would be great
> incentive to settle out of court and not
> clog the system with weak cases.

Good Idea Dave! Simply add it to the court costs!
And while your're at it a little for mileage would help also (60 mile round trip for me)


lamontdc@adelphia.net

Nice idea but would be problematic to enforce. My uncle works as a court reporter and has unpaid bills to lawyers that go back years. Appearently that's not an uncommon situation.

awalker2002@comcast.net

OK Gang, back to our usually scheduled discussions of railway preservation. This thread has strayed way far afield.

eledbetter@rypn.org