By Mary Goetsch
Aurora
As readers of Grandpa’s column know, emotions have been stirred about the subject of jury duty (thevoice.us/ask-grandpa-justice-system-valid-on-real-perseverance). The July 1 anonymous writer didn’t know the whole picture of a senior not willing to serve. Before judging my character negatively, I ask consideration for what the U.S. Constitution and Illinois law says.
The Sixth Amendment provides the right to a trial by jury. It mentions speedy trial, public, impartial jury and does not mention peers or specify number of jurors. It does not mention the case of indigent persons unable to pay an attorney. We know attorneys as well as court staff are paid and willing employees. There are jury specialists, often psychologists by education, who command high fees. These jury consultants advise defense attorneys about which prospective jurors they would not want. The Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS) decided in 1970 that juries as few as six are okay *(1). Then in 1978 SCOTUS decided five would be too few *(2).
The State of Illinois tried to downsize to 6-member juries in 2015. The reason was they were trying to incentivize more people to serve. The court gave the 12-member money budget to 6 and thereby doubled the stipend. Then in 2016 this practice was challenged and ruled unconstitutional by our State Constitution *(3). The legal opinion included the ruling that the Statute be “remanded” (re-written) since “jury pay is not severable from the Statute…” 735 ILCS 5/2-1105 covers state court procedure for jury trials. Now it is 2021 and-the current bound volumes of Illinois Compiled Statutes are missing not only this section, but there is a gap between 5/21102 and 5/2 1201! Exclamation point mine. It is difficult these days to even get to see a paper copy of our statutes, and how many people would even guess the portion pertaining to compensation-juries is completely missing? What is going on? The State Constitution is from 1970. It developed from common law, which is “more broad” than federal law. State law was intended to provide meaning independent of U.S. law *(4). The difference between State and Federal is one of substance and not merely of form. The State prevails so long as it does not violate the Federal Constitution.
Well, my private opinion is that the State does violate the Federal Constitution for not having jury duty a paid or voluntary engagement. The Thirteenth Amendment (1865) prohibits involuntary servitude.
Labor laws of each state have evolved a lot since slaves were freed. IL is at $11 per hour minimum. My opinion against coerced jury service stems from the very ideal of an impartial jury mentioned in both Constitutions. The judge asks each prospective juror if they can give an impartial verdict. I rest my case that only willing people can serve.
Finally, the “Due Process” Amendment XIV (1868) states it is unlawful to deprive any citizen of life, liberty or property. One’s personal time in retirement counts as “life.” This amendment puts more teeth into the 13th since it boils down to having uniform processes which cannot discriminate. If jury duty is mandatory, then there could be no exceptions. The current Jury Summons has many exceptions and for this reason it cannot be considered a nondiscriminatory process. It violates “Due Process.”
How then to get enough jurors? Perhaps it is time for a U.S. Constitutional Amendment: Fix some problems in the criminal justice system. The main problem is the case backlog. In 1972 it was the main problem; my high school debate team researched and came up with the idea of three-member professional juries. The system needs to be simpler and more efficient, somehow. Market research might determine the labor market price. It would take experts to figure out the minimum number of jurors. SCOTUS says six. Five, try it again? What about three? One each invited from the pool from the defense, the prosecution, and the judge? Who would be these people? Paralegals could do the job and eliminate the need for so many instructions. There are other things which also could then be changed, perhaps: no need to exclude any evidence; no need to exclude prior criminal history (after all, this is
real life and not a condensed narrative); do not allow jail snitch testimony and discipline inmates who discuss such cases and offer their stories; end plea bargaining in exchange for cooperation if such cooperation is for purposes of nailing another party.
I end with the idea from former SCOTUS justice Louis Brandeis- it is a constitutional right to be left alone.
FOOTNOTES. One can Google cases and read summaries. To read the entire ruling usually requires subscription to an online legal service such as Westlaw or Lexis-Nexis. Even Law Libraries now do not have all the hardbound volumes they used to have. Our Aurora Public Library is missing our set of Illinois Compiled Statutes. The good side of this means going physically to Kane County Law Library, which has the 2021 edition! One only does not want to drive there in rush morning traffic.
- Williams v. Florida 399 U.S. 78 (1970).
- Ballew v. Georgia 435 U.S. 223 (1978).
- Kakos v. Butler 2016 IL 120377.
- Daley v. Joyce 533 NE 2d 873 (1988).