Data processing: financial – business practice – management – or co – Automated electrical financial or business practice or... – Discount or incentive
Reexamination Certificate
1999-12-13
2003-10-28
Hafiz, Tariq R. (Department: 3623)
Data processing: financial, business practice, management, or co
Automated electrical financial or business practice or...
Discount or incentive
C705S002000, C705S002000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06640213
ABSTRACT:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
The United States Constitution guarantees citizens the right to trial by an impartial jury in all criminal prosecutions and in certain civil suits. See U.S. Constitution, Amendments VI and VII. The process used by trial courts to select jurors is called “voir dire.” The term “voir dire” is French and literally means “to speak the truth.” The voir dire process is used to determine whether particular persons are “qualified” to sit as jurors, whether such persons' schedules enable them to sit as jurors and then whether or not they are “suitable” to sit as a juror on a particular case.
The first hurdle which must be cleared in the juror voir dire process is to determine whether a person is “qualified” to sit as a juror. In order to be “qualified” to sit as a juror, a person must meet certain minimal criteria, such as being 18 years of age or older and a U.S. citizen.
The next step in the juror voir dire process is to determine whether or not a person's schedule renders him/her available to sit as a juror at a particular time when a trial is scheduled. And, finally, the jury voir dire process seeks to determine whether or not a particular person is “suitable” to sit as a juror with respect to the subject matter at issue in a particular trial. This inquiry seeks to determine whether the prospective juror is unbiased and is able to be impartial (for example, a person who was previously convicted on a burglary charge would most likely not be able to be impartial if serving as a juror in another burglary trial).
There are approximately 5,000 trial courts in the United States including courts under the jurisdiction of the states and courts in the federal judicial system. Each such trial court maintains its own rules and procedures with respect to the qualification and selection of prospective trial jurors and the conduct of the jury voir dire process.
A typical juror qualification and selection process is found in Title 28 of the United States Code which deals with federal judicial procedure. Pursuant to that statute, the first step in the federal court juror voir dire process is for the court to compile a master listing of names of prospective jurors from the citizens residing within the court's jurisdiction. There are several general sources used by many courts to compile this master listing, including a list of registered voters and listings of persons filing tax returns, among other sources. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. §§1861, 1863.
From the master listing of all prospective jurors, the court must devise a procedure whereby a random smaller selection of potential jurors may be made from the master listing. The random smaller selection procedure should be designed to ensure that such random smaller selection procedure results in a fair demographic cross section of the citizens residing within the jurisdiction of the court. See id. The random smaller selection procedure is typically used to form a “master jury wheel” which is periodically emptied and re-filled with another random smaller selection of prospective jurors from the master listing. Id.
The next step in a typical juror voir dire process involves the court's random selection of names of prospective jurors from the master jury wheel at times when persons are needed for jury service in upcoming trials. Each court uses its own rules for determining the number of names to be drawn from the master jury wheel. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. §1864.
Once names of prospective jurors are drawn from the master jury wheel, the court must mail to every person whose name is drawn from the master jury wheel a juror questionnaire form for each prospective juror to fill out and return. See id. This juror questionnaire form seeks to determine whether such prospective juror is “qualified” to sit as a juror.
Following receipt of the completed juror questionnaire form, the court must determine whether a person completing such juror questionnaire form is qualified or unqualified for jury service. The persons who remain following such determination are then placed in a “qualified jury wheel.” From time to time, the court conducts a random drawing of such number of names of persons from the qualified jury wheel as may be required for assignment to jury panels for upcoming trials. Following the random drawing, the court then issues summonses to each person whose name was drawn from the qualified jury wheel for jury service. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C §§1865, 1866. Typical means used for service of such summonses include service by registered, certified or first-class mail. See id.
Following receipt of a summons by a person whose name was drawn from the qualified jury wheel for jury duty, such person may still be excused or excluded from service as a juror or have his/her jury service deferred. A selected person may be excused from jury service or obtain a deferral of his/her jury service at a particular time, for example, upon a showing that jury service would cause him/her undue hardship or extreme inconvenience. (Many courts will, however, reinsert the excused person into the qualified jury wheel.) Finally, if a prospective juror makes it to this step in the jury voir dire process, he/she may still be excluded from jury service upon a showing that such prospective juror would not be able to render impartial jury service in a particular trial. Such excluded prospective juror could also be reinserted into the qualified jury wheel if the basis for the initial exclusion would not be relevant to his/her ability to serve on another jury. See id.
As can be determined from the above description, the typical juror voir dire processes currently used by various trial courts are quite cumbersome, inefficient, document intensive and costly. For example, typically each trial court pays costs associated with the printing and duplication of juror questionnaires, summonses, maps, instructions for jury service, fact books on jury service, and preprinted envelopes, among other documents. The courts also have postage costs associated with mailing the juror questionnaire forms to prospective jurors, postage for prepaid return envelopes for the prospective jurors' use to return the completed juror questionnaire forms, postage for mailing notifications to prospective jurors who were determined to be unqualified for jury service, postage for mailing jury summonses to prospective jurors who were determined to be qualified and were then drawn from the qualified juror wheel, postage for prepaid return envelopes for each qualified prospective juror's use to return a second juror questionnaire, postage for mailing letters to prospective jurors informing them of the dates upon which they must report to court, postage for prepaid return envelopes for prospective jurors' use to request an exemption from, exclusion from or deferral of their jury service, and postage for mailing a notice to a prospective juror of the court's determination with respect to the juror's request for a deferral, exemption or exclusion. All of these postage costs mount quite rapidly. It is estimated that a single court can spend as much as $2.30 per person on postage costs alone with regard to the juror voir dire process. And, assuming that this court mails out approximately 75,000 initial juror questionnaires in a two-year period, it may spend as much as $172,500.00 in postage costs associated with the juror voir dire process in any two-year period.
In addition to these printing and postage costs, a trial court will also incur costs associated with personnel who administer the juror voir dire process and for each judge's time for participation in the jury voir dire process. If the jury voir dire processes were managed more efficiently, courts could save much of these costs and/or reassign or reallocate administrative resources to other matters.
Accordingly, a need exists for a method and system for conducting jury voir dire which is efficient, utilizes less paper and is less costly than current processes.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
It is therefore an
Carp Tenley Anne
Davidov Natalya B.
Friedman Milton B.
Doren Beth Van
Hafiz Tariq R.
LandOfFree
Automated process for conducting jury voir dire does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Automated process for conducting jury voir dire, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Automated process for conducting jury voir dire will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3166197