GOTJ: Get Out the Juror

Much Obliged: Volunteering, Normative Activities, and Willingness to Serve on Juries

“…Courts might therefore provide information about how common it is for people to do what is asked of them (e.g., “Join the 30,000 other citizens in your community who did their duty last year and made themselves available for jury service.”). As with Bowler, Esterling, and Holmes (), randomly assigning content to different batches of summons mailings would be especially useful in identifying which, if any, messages predict greater summons response. Finally, the summons or other outreach methods could also highlight the need for a wide variety of voices, as some people may be less willing because, on balance, they do not see how their failure to appear makes a difference.…”

“…First, for those less intrinsically motivated to meet obligations, people need reminders to respond to the summons. In an innovative randomized field experiment, Bowler, Esterling, and Holmes (2014) showed that reminder postcards boosted response rates in one county and that a reminder that emphasized penalties for failing to appear had a somewhat greater effect (a 10 percent increase over the no‐reminder condition, rather than a 5 percent increase for a reminder emphasizing duty).…”

“…An emphasis on penalties, however, can be problematic in areas that do not, in fact, engage in any enforcement, and those courts might investigate alternatives. Bowler, Esterling, and Holmes's (2014) study showed that any form of reminder is better than none and it is conceivable that conveying other types of information may be useful. A summons might remind people that jury duty is one of the few ways that people can serve their country (see Ferguson 2013).…”

“…Other reforms, such as sharply increasing penalties for failure to appear, requiring businesses to pay jurors while they are away from work, or providing more support services to jurors (e.g., child care, transportation) have yet to penetrate many areas (see, e.g., Seltzer 1999; American Bar Association Coalition for Justice 2001; Mize, Hannaford‐Agor, and Waters 2007). Courts have made some strides in reducing nonresponse through some low‐cost efforts, such as reminder postcards (see Bowler, Esterling, and Holmes 2014), but understanding attitudes toward service may help courts identify still other ways to increase yields (e.g., through education campaigns or other outreach). Yet, we know little about the profile of individuals who are more or less willing to serve on a jury.…”

“…Thus, in addition to an unknown number of people who ignored their summons, this group includes those who may be quite unwilling (e.g., those previously disqualified or those who have claimed statutory exemptions from serving), as well as those who may be more willing (those who appeared at court but never made it to a courtroom for questioning). Identifying true nonresponders is highly difficult in the absence of close coordination with jury administrators in particular areas (e.g., Boatright 1998; Bloeser, McCurley, and Mondak 2012; Bowler, Esterling, and Holmes 2014), something not feasible for a state‐level analysis, such as the one Rose, Diamond, and Musick undertook.…”