Juror reactions to jury duty: perceptions of the system and potential stressors

Abstract

Jurors were surveyed on their general perceptions of the court system and factors that may cause stress immediately after trial, after participating in a post‐trial debriefing, and a month after trial. Jurors had an overall positive view of the court system but did report some perceived inequities. The two most stressful elements of jury duty were related to the complexity of the trial and the decision‐making involved in the trial, although jurors reported low levels of stress overall. Women reported more stress than men, and trial characteristics such as trial length also affected stress levels. The debriefing intervention was perceived as helpful, but jurors' stress levels were similar at pre‐ and post‐debriefing. Finally, although stress on some measures was lower at the 1 month follow‐up, this reduction was not moderated by whether or not jurors received the debriefing. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The experiences of those who have served jury duty

“…Jurors found staff within the CJS to be respectful and reported good communication skills (Bornstein et al, 2005). Fifty-seven percent of jurors felt an improved sense of understanding about how the CJS works (Bornstein et al, 2005). Cutler and Hughes (2001) cite previous bodies of research, supporting high levels of satisfaction with jury duty, and have found similar results in their own research; however, these studies used quantitative methods and sought information such as satisfaction levels relevant to the juror's treatment from the judge and lawyers.…”

“…Though research indicates that the majority of jurors will need minimal to no intervention, those who do require intervention, may require high levels of intervention (Nordgren & Thelen, 1999). The limitations in the research completed to date include a lack of knowledge about the potential long-term effects of serving on jury duty (Bornstein et al, 2005) and a limited focus on how juror dissatisfaction might lead to a decline in public confidence in the judiciary system (Cutler & Hughes, 2001), rather than individual wellbeing.…”

“…Miller goes on to make the recommendation that juror service be professionalized. Bornstein, Miller, Nemeth, Page, and Musil (2005) conducted research using surveys which looked at participants' perceptions of the court system and what factors cause stress immediately following trial, and then one month after trial. Similar to Miller's (2008) findings, Bornstein et al, reported findings congruent with overall positive juror experiences, indicating, for example, that 40% of jurors, if summoned again, would try to be selected for jury duty.…”

“…Overall, jurors found the trial selection process to be fair, and indicate that the accused received a fair trial (Bornstein, Miller, Nemeth, Page, & Musil, 2005). Jurors found staff within the CJS to be respectful and reported good communication skills (Bornstein et al, 2005).…”

“…Health effects to jurors can range from short duration and mild to long lasting and severe (Kaplan & Winget, 1992;Miller, 2008). Documented reactions to difficult court cases among jurors include: increased stress (Kelley, 1994;Miller, 2008); anxiety; difficulty sleeping; headaches; increased drinking; high blood pressure; hives that can last for several months after the trial ends (Bornstein et al, 2005); intrusive thoughts; restlessness; agitation; disturbing dreams (Feldmann & Bell, 1993) anger; and guilt (Feldmann & Bell, 1991). In a Los Angeles beating case, jurors were excused from service due to various problems such as high blood pressure and other undisclosed medical concerns that lead to hospitalization (Hafemeister, 1993).…”