Lifting of exemptions a key in reforming Nevada’s jury system

By Timothy Pratt

Wednesday, May 14, 2003 | 9:26 a.m.

Nevada will will soon adopt a series of changes to juries on the heels of "the most significant effort to improve the trial process since Nevada became a state," according to Supreme Court Justice Bob Rose.

The changes include lifting exemptions for certain professionals called to jury duty, increasing the pay for jurors and allowing jury members to ask questions during a trial.

Justice Mark Gibbons, who served on the state commission that recommended the reforms, said lifting exemptions for jury duty may be the change noticed most immediately by the public.

That change was included in Senate Bill 73, which passed the Senate and is awaiting a vote on the Assembly floor. It requires such professionals as doctors, police officers, federal and state officers, judges and attorneys to serve on juries when called.

"Getting rid of exemptions is very important to having more broad-based representation," Gibbons said.

"It means there's no elitism and everyone's treated the same."

Chief Justice Deborah A. Agosti, who chaired the commission with Rose, said the reforms are wide-sweeping but single-minded.

"We've taken a long systematic look at how we treat jurors and what role jurors play in a trial," Agosti said.

"The sum and substance of the philosophy underpinning the recommendations is to have juries plays a more active role in the trial process."

The commission was formed in 2001. At the time less than a dozen such commissions had undertaken similar studies nationwide, Bill Gang, statewide court program coordinator, said.

Currently, 28 states have changed some aspects of juries and how they're used in trials, according to the National Center for State Courts website.

"Trial courts around the country are experimenting with jury trial innovations, including orientation for jurors (and) allowing jurors to take notes and ask questions," the website says.

In Nevada, judges have long had the discretion to allow questions from the jury, Agosti said.

Gibbons said he adopted the practice for about 70 trials during his five-year tenure at Clark County District Court ending in 2002.

"I never had any problem with it, and the big plus is that the jury can clarify factual information before it's too late," Gibbons said.

Gibbons said the only opposition to the practice has come from attorneys.

"Some lawyers may not like questions because they want (the jury) to hear what they want them to hear," he said.

"But most attorneys who have had trials with questions favor the process. I think it's more a fear of the unknown than anything else."

Most of the proposed changes will be put into action before July 1. A committee will draft new rules where needed and should have its job done by the end of the year, Gibbons said.

"Together, these recommendations will allow (juries) to make more of an intelligent appraisal of evidence and have a more active role in the disposition of a case," Agosti said.