Minnesota Lawyer Blog

Serving on a jury has never been glamorous, but jury duty is quickly turning from an often mundane and time-consuming civic exercise into an insulting one.

As a result of the $19 million shortfall faced by Minnesota's judicial system, the per-diem received by jurors will be cut from $20 to $10 (along with mileage and other reimbursements) starting on Aug. 4. The move is projected to save $1.1 million annually.

It wasn't long ago that jurors in Minnesota were paid $30 per day. With the most recent cut, jurors here are compensated at well below the national average, and for far less than the $40 that jurors in federal trials get.

Jury duty isn't exactly a sexy gig to begin with: It requires people to plan tentatively for trials that might not even take place, and to miss work and endure long, often tedious proceedings when they do take place. Employers are supposed to give workers paid time off when they're called for jury duty, but not all do. It's a no-win for those unlucky enough to be chosen for what should be a valuable way to engage the man on the street in the legal process.

Is cutting an already paltry stipend in half any way to ensure that Minnesota's trial juries will consist of intelligent, engaged citizens? And if $10 per day is all the state can spare, why not cut out the payment entirely before it's reduced to $5, then $2?

Minnesota Lawyer has an interesting piece this week on the Judicial Council debate last week on whether or not to impose a moratorium on all civil jury trials. The discussion occurred at a Judicial Council meeting held during the Minnesota State Bar Association's annual convention in Duluth. The council ultimately rejected the idea, but not before some frustration was vented about lawmakers' treatment of the courts in the budget process. (Click here to see the article.)

The Judicial Council met all day today at the MSBA convention in Duluth and made two significant decisions:

1. It voted to carve another $550,000 from the court's budget, basically by cutting 2 percent from all court operations across the board.

2. It voted to take two steps in connection with the public defender's recent decision not to represent parents in CHIPS cases: The state court administrator will advise the counties that they may be asked to pick up the tab for court-appointed counsel if they are not doing so already; and a letter will go out to all the chief judges advising them that they have several options when it comes to appointing lawyers for parents--including appointing a public defender or sending the bill to the county, which the county may decide it won't pay. However, in deference to the judge's adjudicative role, the council will not attempt to tie the trial court judge's hands. The council is aware that it may be setting the stage for a showdown on attorney funding and that a lawsuit by either the public defenders or a county may ensue. "It seems to me we have a lot of people spoiling for a fight because they want resolution from [a] court," said Court of Appeals Judge Mimi Wright.