Long jury process isn't a bad thing

5/13/07
No one would have been surprised to see a national survey that rated Connecticut as having the slowest highways at rush hour, or one that said the state has the slowest legislators when it comes to passing laws. And a report that said we have the longest time span between grand announcement of a city-reviving Project for the Ages on a rundown peninsula and the actual breaking of ground would have come and gone with few raised eyebrows.
But a recently released report that Connecticut moves slower than any other state when it comes to picking juries for trials did garner attention. At first, it was unclear whether we were supposed to be pleased or embarrassed by it. After all, the right to a speedy, public trial is among our most basic rights —it’s right there in the Sixth Amendment. But no one likes to wait around all day wondering about their jury duty fate.
Connecticut takes 10 hours on average to pick a jury for serious criminal trials and 16 hours for civil trials, according to the survey. The next slowest states average about five hours for criminal trials and four for civil cases. South Carolina is the fastest state, taking 30 minutes to pick a jury in criminal and civil cases.
Put in that context, maybe we’re doing OK. Thirty minutes is an awfully short time to spend on deciding who could put a defendant away for life, or worse. That this state spends more time and energy deliberating over who should be allowed on the jury ought to give us confidence in our legal system.
But it’s still a long way from our record to the next slowest state. What accounts for much of the difference is the lack of group questioning; around here, prospective jurors fill out a questionnaire and then answer queries from the attorneys one at a time.
Opponents say it’s a waste of time and resources, but one that’s unlikely to change because it would require an amendment to the Connecticut Constitution. But the other side bears listening to — supporters say potential jurors are more honest when questioned individually rather than surrounded by their peers, when they could succumb to group pressure.
It’s a rational argument, and a process that deserves every safeguard we can provide. If that means lawyers have to spend more time on the selection process and jury duty is less convenient, it’s a small price to pay in the service of justice.