Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Access To Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panelists urge jury reform, better access and community solutions to rebuild trust in courts
Summary
University of Washington panelists proposed concrete reforms — jury-selection rules, jury pay pilots, court navigators, restorative and preventive legal services — as ways to address inequities and restore public confidence in state courts.
A second panel at the symposium focused on practical reforms to improve fairness and public trust in courts.
Vanessa Hernandez, integrated advocacy director at the ACLU of Washington, highlighted efforts inside Washington to confront historic inequities — most notably a new Washington rule urging a "reasonable observer" approach to jury selection (GR 37) and other measures to broaden juror representation. "That is a system which is almost guaranteed to breed mistrust," Hernandez said of disproportionate exclusions in jury pools, and she pointed to GR 37 as a rule the state is using to respond.
Chief Justice Deborah Stevens described a recent pilot in Pierce County that offered jurors $100 per day — a contrast to the longstanding $10-per-day baseline in many counties — and said the court will publish a fuller report on the pilot's effects on participation.
Panelists proposed several other reforms: expanding legal navigators and community-based alternatives to litigation, investing in access to counsel and public legal services, trial-court outreach and better public explanations of judicial decisions, and experimenting with restorative or diversion programs where appropriate. Professor Liz Porter and Jeff Feldman emphasized that access and timeliness are central: staffing and funding shortfalls increase delays and cost for litigants, which in turn undermine trust.
Several speakers suggested a shared civic responsibility: the bar and civic leaders should defend the institutional legitimacy of courts, and courts should pursue outreach that improves transparency without compromising judicial independence.
The panel was followed by audience Q&A that ranged from judicial-campaign ethics to misinformation, and the program closed with a reception for continued conversation.
