| "Looking Back on
a Glorious Past 1691-1991" (Click Here to view entire document in PDF format) |
|
|
Exemptions Return But it was only several years before the deleted exemptions began to reappear. In 1943, the editor and newspaper reporter exemption for those handling news was reenacted, and expanded to include even copy readers for daily, semi-weekly and weekly newspapers. The exemption became permanent in 1946. The justification for the exemption was that no lawyer would ever allow a newspaper editor or employee to sit on jury. It cannot but be noted that newspaper people supported the exemption for years.[14] The exemption was later expanded to include radio and television news staff. The teachers exemption was restored in 1955, but was subsequently limited to those actually working during the school session. In the major revision of jury procedure in 1977, teachers and newspaper editors, reporters, and proof readers were not exempted although, like everyone else, they were able to seek adjournments of their service based on employment obligations. In the 1977 statute and later amendments, the category of physicians |
and dentists was expanded to other health services providers, including nurses, psychologists, prothetists, orthodists and physical therapists. The newest exemption is for small business proprietors or managers with one or two employees. Lawyers, police officers, corrections officers and fire officers are also exempt. Recently there has been proposed legislation to end exemptions leaving prospective jurors to seek postponements of service and lawyers to use their challenges. The proposal would further advance the democratization of the jury. At the beginning of every jury trial, I tell jurors that by serving they make our federal and state Constitutions living documents. I also thank them for what will be their hard work. I have no doubt that when the jurors hear the remarks at the commencement of a trial, they cannot appreciate the significance of their experience. It is only after jurors have listened to the evidence, observed the interplay between the participants, been instructed on the law, entrusted to apply those principles, and deliberated with their colleagues, that they realize how much they have learned about a remarkable process and the foundations of our democratic system. |
|
Footnote 1: Judge, New York State Court of Claims, designated to the New York State Supreme Court, 12th Judicial District, Bronx County. Footnote 2: People v. Kern, 75 N.Y. 2d 638, 652-53 (1990). Footnote 3: Croswell & Sutton (ed.), Debates and Proceedings at 425-26 (New York State Convention for the Revision of the Constitution, 1846). Footnote 4: VI Problems Relating to Bill of Rights and General Welfare (New York State Constitutional Convention Committee 1938). Footnote 5: People v. Cosmo, 205 N.Y. 91, 103 (1912). Footnote 6: VI Problems Related to the Bill of Rights and General Welfare at 18 (Constitutional Convention 1938). Footnote 7: 2 McKinney s Session Laws at 2617 (1977) (Memorandum of Office of Court Administration). Footnote 8: People v. Dunn, 157 N.Y. 528,536 (1899). Footnote 9: 1975 N.Y. Legis. Annual at 413; People v. Cosad, 189 Misc. 939 (Seneca County Ct. 1947). Footnote 10: Ballard v. United States,329 U.S. 187, 193 (1946), Cited by People v. Cosad, 189 Misc, at 940. Footnote 11: 1981 N.Y.S. Legis. Annual at 105 (Memorandum of Senator Hugh Farley). Footnote 12: 2 McKinney s Session Laws at 2617 (1977) (Memorandum of Office of Court Administration). Footnote 13: 2 People v. Guzman, 76 N.Y. 2d 1, 4-5 (1990). Footnote 14: 1946 N.Y.S. Legis. Annual at 20 (Memorandum of Sponsor). | |
 The Historical Society of the Courts of the State of New York | |
