Editorial: Jurors’ Bill of Rights goes too far

Friday, Nov. 1, 2002 | 9:34 a.m.

Most adults receive a jury summons every few years and most are willing to respond and fulfill their civic responsibility. While they may grumble a bit, they know that their service is a small price to pay for an open court system where verdicts are rendered by impartial citizens.

It's vital that citizens continue to see this big picture and respond willingly and not with dread when they get their summonses. To that end, the Nevada Supreme Court a year ago formed the Jury Improvement Commission. Chaired by Justices Bob Rose and Deborah Agosti, the commission's 15 members conducted public hearings around the state and Thursday released a list of recommendations. The Legislature, the Eighth Judicial District, and the Supreme Court will review the recommendations appropriate to their jurisdictions and many will likely be implemented.

Many of the recommendations are worthy of consideration, such as increasing jurors' pay, allowing jurors to ask questions and eliminating the exemptions from jury duty enjoyed by doctors, lawyers, police officers and, for some archaic reason, train conductors. One recommendation that we believe is too sweeping, however, is to adopt a written Jurors' Bill of Rights, with the No. 1 right being that a juror's time is precious and must not be wasted.

Procedures should be adopted by judges so they don't waste jurors' time, but a written Bill of Rights for jurors seems extreme. Trials vary and so do the experiences of jurors. The No. 1 right in a court of law -- to receive a fair trial -- belongs to the defendant. If jurors must wait while a defendant's attorney offers another argument, or for other court procedures that are in place to afford fairness, so be it. There must never be anything in writing that could lead to the convenience of jurors outweighing the right of a defendant.