GENERAL ASSEMBLY SHOULD LOOK AT REDUCING JURY SIZE

The judicial system is rooted in tradition, though some customs have fallen away with the times. Like any institution, the courts do well to examine their procedures from time to time, to question the way they do business. One question for Missouri courts: Why are 12 jurors needed for all trials? Even those who make a living in the legal profession can't find the magic in that number. A move is afoot to consider reducing the number of jurors required in some trials. We believe it is an idea worth looking at.

Fourteen states use juries of fewer than 12 people in many trials, and 94 federal court districts use six-member juries for civil cases. In Missouri, statutes allow misdemeanor cases to be tried with as few as six jurors if both defendant and prosecution agree; they seldom do. At least one Missouri lawmaker, Sen. Mike Lybyer of Huggins, will introduce legislation to the General Assembly in 1994 that will allow smaller juries except in capital murder cases. A similar bill failed to get out of committee this year.

There are compelling reasons to see such a measure approved. The time it takes to dispense justice could be trimmed. As part of any trial, a jury must be selected, and it stands to reason the selection of fewer jurors would require less time. Foremost, however, is the fact that larger juries cost more money. In Cape Girardeau County, jurors are paid $18 a day and get seven cents a mile for transportation costs; jurors called to duty but not selected for the trial panel still are paid $12. While this is meager compensation for those who serve their state as jurors (especially in light of citizens who lose wages, must arrange day care for children or are generally inconvenienced), it eventually adds up to big money, for one county and the state as a whole. Trimming these jury costs by perhaps a third and not seeing a degeneration in the apportionment of justice should seem appealing to budget writers and taxpayers.

Many judges insist the toughest part of their job is getting all the necessary parties for a trial -- jurors, lawyers, defendants, witnesses, support personnel, and so on -- in the same room at the same time for the same purpose. If nothing else, reducing the number of jurors needed for most trials from 12 to, say, eight would diminish that burden somewhat.

One judge who has studied this issue says the lingering inclusion of 12 people on a jury is "a historical accident," a relic carried on from the British judicial system. In our society, there are a great many instances of inexplicable tradition; like many people, we stand susceptible to a great deal of it. In this case, however, custom with no good reason costs the taxpayers money. If smaller juries can be used in non-death penalty cases without the administration of justice being altered, we are for the reduction. The legislation should be viewed seriously by the General Assembly.