By Khorri Atkinson

Law360 (June 17, 2020, 4:40 PM EDT ) When civil and criminal jury trials resume at the D.C. Superior Court, a new pool of potential jurors previously barred from serving will now be eligible to sit in the jury box.

Chief Judge Robert Morin announced Monday that the court will begin allowing District of Columbia residents with felony convictions to serve as jurors one year after completion of their sentence, probation, supervised release or parole, the minimum permitted under D.C. law. Those with felony convictions previously had to wait 10 years before becoming eligible to serve.

The modifications will go into effect when restrictions on jury trials due to the coronavirus pandemic are lifted.

"We are pleased to eliminate this barrier to full participation by returning citizens," Judge Morin said in a statement. "Jury service is a fundamental civic duty and an opportunity for all citizens, regardless of their background, to participate in our civil and criminal justice systems. This change will make juries more representative, advance due process and allow returning citizens to more fully participate."

Criminal justice reform advocates, including the D.C.-based Council for Court Excellence, have long been pushing for this policy change.

The council's executive director, Misty Thomas, lauded the change in a statement to Law360 Wednesday. Thomas wrote that it will allow more D.C. residents to participate fully "in an important part of civic life and will increase the court's pool of prospective jurors." 

"It will also help ensure that the overall juror pool is more diverse and, ultimately, more representative of D.C.'s population," she added. "1 in 7 adult residents have a criminal record, and more than 80% of the adults arrested in D.C. are Black. We must also recognize that this is only one step; our courts and lawmakers must continue to address other barriers that may hinder jury service or other civic participation for returning citizens, including, for example, difficulties seeking expungement or sealing old case and arrest records, and examining voir dire practices." 

The CCE, which comprises judges, legal scholars and others, had recommended such a change in a 2015 report whose lead authors included U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson and retired Arnold & Porter senior counsel Irvin B. Nathan, a former D.C. attorney general.

In the report, which also recommended other changes to the court's jury process, Judge Jackson and Nathan wrote that the 10-year requirement "greatly surpasses'" the one-year minimum codified in D.C. law. The report likened the proposed change to former felons in the district who automatically regained their voting rights after completing their sentence — a key element of rehabilitation, according to the report.

Along with helping increase the prospective jury pool size and ensure that the overall pool of potential jurors is representative of the district's population, allowing former felons to serve as jurors within a shorter period of time "would have the practical effect of easing burdens on the court by ... simplifying the management of source lists, which now undergo an extensive purging process necessitated by the ten-year restriction," the report said. 

The report further argues that opponents of allowing felons to serve on juries have presented unpersuasive arguments. For example, the report says, there is often no significant difference in the seriousness of the offense between felons, who are excluded for 10 years, and those convicted of misdemeanors, who are not excluded at all. Misdemeanor convictions often stem from similar criminal conduct and result from plea bargaining "rather than any real difference in the culpability of the offender," according to the report. 

"Similarly, once the punishment handed down is served, requiring ex-felons to continue to be excluded from the jury pool for lengthy amounts of time does not advance the purposes of punishment in any way," the report said. "Opponents of felon inclusion cite issues of inherent bias, presumption of character, and impact on reintegration and criminal desistance as reasons for exclusion. However, research indicates that having a felony conviction is no more predictive of a pro-defense bias in a criminal case than several other factors."

In Monday's announcement, the trial court noted that it had made a number of changes to expand the pool of eligible jurors in the district. The court has limited the frequency with which residents must show up to serve jury duty and implemented a call-in system so jurors can check the night before to see whether they were summoned. 

The 10-year restriction for residents with felony convictions to serve on grand juries at the Superior Court still remains.

The court has not been summoning residents for petit and grand jury services because of social distancing guidelines and disruptions to courtroom operations as a result of the COVID-19 crisis.

--Editing by Peter Rozovsky.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.