1 | Juror Non-Response and Failure-to-Appear: Report and Recommendations for Harris County
Why Won’t They Come?
A Study of Juror Nonresponse and Failure-to-Appear
in Harris County, Texas
Report and Recommendations to
the Harris County District Clerk
December 2023
Acknowledgements and Disclaimers
NCSC and RTI are grateful to the Harris County District Clerk and her staff who graciously
agreed to participate in this study and to share its findings. We are also grateful to our
Strengthening the Sixth partners at the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys; the National
Association for Criminal Defense Lawyers, especially Bonnie Hoffman and Monica Milton; and
to NCSC colleagues Chris Wu, Patti Snell, and Melissa Woods who provided valuable guidance
and support.
This project is supported by Grant No. 2019-YA-BX-K0001 awarded by the Bureau of Justice
Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Department of Justice’s
Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National
Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Office for
Victims of Crimes, and the SMART Office. Points of view or opinions in this document are
those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S.
Department of Justice, the National Center for State Courts, or RTI International.
Project Staff
National Center for State Courts
Paula Hannaford-Agor, JD, MPP
Morgan Moffett, MPP
RTI International
Venita Embry, PhD, MPH
Beth Hustedt, JD, MA
Emily Burtch, MS
Alexia Walker, BA
Karima Modjadidi, PhD
3 | Juror Non-Response and Failure-to-Appear: Report and Recommendations for Harris County
Introduction
A persistent challenge in jury system management are people who fail to respond to their jury
summons or fail to appear (FTA) on their reporting date. High nonresponse and FTA rates greatly
undermine system efficiency by making it necessary to summon more jurors to compensate for
those who fail to respond or appear. Nonresponse also increases the burden on citizens who do
respond and appear for service rather than distributing service equitably across the entire jury-
eligible population. Nonresponse and FTA rates are often highly correlated with lower socioeconomic
status; consequently, nonresponse and FTA rates often result in jury pools that underrepresent
people of color and other marginalized communities.
1
The last time juror nonresponse and failure to appear rates were studied was in 1998 by Robert
Boatright at the American Judicature Society (AJS Study). The study followed up on non-responders
and FTA jurors in four jurisdictions and found that the most common reason for nonresponse was
that jurors never received the jury summons, usually because they had moved to a new address.
Individuals who received their jury summons but failed to respond or appear were not inherently
hostile to jury service, but differed from jurors who did respond or appear in several significant
ways. For example, non-responders were less informed about what jury service entailed, including
the term of service, procedures to be excused or deferred from service, and the consequences of
nonresponse.
2
The AJS Study recommended improved public outreach and education prior to receipt
of a jury summons in addition to effective master jury list maintenance and summons enforcement
efforts to minimize nonresponse and FTA rates.
The AJS Study was conducted a quarter-century ago and much in society has changed, making
it possible that the factors that contributed to nonresponse and FTA rates have also changed,
especially following COVID-related disruptions to court operations. Since the start of the pandemic,
average nonresponse and FTA rates increased from 14% in 2019 to 16% in 2022, with some
courts reporting rates exceeding 33%.
3
The Harris County District Court (Houston, Texas) reported
especially high rates: 37% in 2019 and 48% in 2022.
In 2023, the Strengthening the Sixth project team partnered with the Harris County District Clerk’s
office, which oversees jury operations for the Harris County District Court, to investigate the extent
to which factors identified by AJS were still relevant and applicable in the greater Houston area. This
report describes the study data and methods, findings, conclusions, and recommendations for jury
operations in the Harris County District Court. The findings will inform the District Clerk’s efforts to
improve public outreach and education about jury service.
1
Paula Hannaford-Agor, Systematic Negligence in Jury Operations: Why the Denition of Systematic Exclusion in Fair Cross
Section Claims Must be Expanded, 59 Drake L. Rev. 761, 774 (2011); Robert Boatright, Improving Citizen Response to Jury
Summons: A Report with Recommendations 68 (1998).
2
Id.
3
NCSC State-of-the-States Survey of Jury Improvement Efforts (forthcoming 2023).
4 | Juror Non-Response and Failure-to-Appear: Report and Recommendations for Harris County
Data/Methods
The Harris County District Clerk randomly selected 5,000 jurors who failed to respond or failed to
appear for jury service from July 1 to December 31, 2022 to receive one of two surveys exploring
beliefs, attitudes, and experience with jury service. Half of these individuals received a letter from
the Harris County District Clerk directing them to log on to an online survey platform that asked them
explicitly why they failed to respond/appear (Version 1). The other half received a letter asking jurors
to log on to the online survey platform to assist the District Clerk in learning why some people don’t
respond/appear for jury service (Version 2). The first version of the survey was designed based on
the findings from 1998 AJS Study and on discussions with court staff in several state courts. Survey
questions in the second version were designed to parallel those in Version 1. To mitigate participants’
possible concerns about repercussions from the court for their non-response, the second version asks
in a more general manner about reasons for not responding.
Letters were sent to participants on March 1, 2023. Five percent of letters (244) were returned by
the US Postal Service (USPS) as undeliverable. Six percent of jurors (158) responded to Version 1
and 2% (56) responded to Version 2. Twenty-two respondents called the National Center for State
Courts (NCSC) to receive a paper survey but were instead surveyed by telephone (21 respondents for
Version 1 and one respondent for Version 2). The project team anticipated more responses to Version
2, due to the more generalized language and nature. Unexpectedly, Version 1 received over three
times more responses than Version 2.
Both surveys invited jurors to participate in a brief interview with project staff to learn about their views
of jury service. For Version 1, 79 (48%) individuals indicated willingness to be interviewed. For Version
2, 10 (19%) individuals indicated willingness to be interviewed. The information for those willing to
be interviewed was forwarded to RTI International (RTI). Three RTI interviewers contacted these 81
individuals beginning on March 22 and ending on April 23. Three attempts were made to reach a
person before considering them an interview nonrespondent. Ultimately, 51 (63%) of the individuals
were nonrespondents; eight (10%) indicated they were not interested in completing the interview;
and 22 (27%) completed the interview. The calls lasted about 10 minutes and covered topics such as
the reasons for nonresponse, their thoughts about jury service and barriers to service, and ways to
improve jury summons response rates.
Demographic information was collected in both versions of the survey. Table 1, below, shows the
demographic composition of the survey and interview samples compared to the jury-eligible population
of Harris County, Texas according to the 2020 U.S. Census. Although there were some proportional
differences, no racial, ethnic or age categories were conspicuously missing from the survey and
interview samples. In addition, most respondents reported that they had previously been summoned
for jury service and most of those had appeared for service in response to the previous summons.
4
4
This rate of having ever been summoned is consistent with other studies of people residing in Harris County who respond to
surveys. For example, Rose and colleagues published a study of jury service histories of people living in Texas. Mary Rose, Shari
S. Diamond & Marc Musick, Selected to Serve: An Analysis of Lifetime Jury Participation, 9 J. Empir. Leg. St. 35 (2012). At our
request, Rose re-analyzed the data to examine just Harris County and found that, among people who responded to the survey,
71% reported having received a summons.
5 | Juror Non-Response and Failure-to-Appear: Report and Recommendations for Harris County
Table 1: Selected Demographics of Study Participants
Total Harris
County
Adult
Population*
Survey
Version 1
n=158
Survey
Version 2
n=56
Interviews
(n=22)
Age
18 to 25 9% 17% 20% 23%
26 to 35 15% 14% 8% 5%
36 to 45 15% 15% 4% 14%
46 to 55 13% 15% 20% 18%
56 to 65 11% 24% 28% 36%
Over 65 11% 15% 20% 5%
Hispanic/Latinx 40% 43% 36% 45%
Race
White 38% 58% 58% 55%
White, Not Hispanic 30% 33% 40% 9%
Black / African American 19% 20% 20% 14%
Native American / Alaskan Native 1% 1% 2% 5%
Asian 8% 10% 4% 5%
Hawai’ian / Pacic Islander <1% <1% - 0%
Other Race 18% 13% 14% 23%
2 or more races 16% 3% 2% 0%
Previously summoned for jury service n/a 68% 78% 62%
If previously summoned, appeared for service n/a 77% 61% 54%
* US Census Bureau, 2020 Decenniel Census, Table P3 (Race for the Population Age 18 and Over);
Table P4 (Hispanic/Latino for the Population Age 18 and Over); Table P005 (Sex by Age)
Survey Version 1 Findings
When asked why they did not respond to their jury summons, respondents offered a variety of
reasons; some offered multiple reasons. Figure 1 displays the proportion for each response.
Most commonly, respondents reported having a hardship that prevented them from serving or not
receiving the jury summons. Other reasons respondents provided included that they were unable to
serve on the date they were summoned, they were ineligible, they were exempt, and other reasons.
6 | Juror Non-Response and Failure-to-Appear: Report and Recommendations for Harris County
Hardships
Many individuals reported hardships as the reason they did not report for jury service. Of the
individuals responding to the survey, 33 selected ‘hardships’ as the reasons for their nonresponse
and an additional seven responses were recoded from “other reason for not serving” because the
explanation indicated a hardship of some kind. The reported hardships can be grouped into five
categories:
Poor Health (16): Of the individuals that indicated a health-related hardship, only half knew
about the process for submitting a doctor’s affidavit to be excused. Further, three individuals
indicated that they did submit an affidavit and requested to be permanently excused from jury
service.
Employment (10): Most individuals stated that either their employer would not pay them for jury
service, their employer could not spare them for jury service, or their employer would fire them
if they skipped work to appear for jury service. One respondent listed unemployment as their
hardship.
Transportation (8): Of the individuals that listed transportation as a hardship, seven indicated
that they did not know about the free Metro Service for jurors provided in Harris County.
Childcare (6): Six individuals responded that childcare, or lack thereof, was the hardship
preventing them from reporting for jury service.
Other hardship (3): Other individuals cited parents in hospice care, the recent death of a child,
and a recent divorce that caused a mental health crisis as hardships that hindered their ability to
report for jury service.
Figure 1: Reasons for not responding for jury service
I had a hardship that prevented me from serving (n=104).
I did not receive the jury summons (n=169).
I could not serve on the date I was summoned (n=104).
I am exempt from jury service (n=104).
I am ineligible for jury service (n=104).
Other reason (n=104).
Total exceeds 100% because
respondents could select
multiple reasons.
39%
36%
25%
18%
13%
6%
7 | Juror Non-Response and Failure-to-Appear: Report and Recommendations for Harris County
Did not receive summons
The second most common reason respondents gave for not responding to the jury summons was
that they never received it. Given that 5% of the letters were returned marked undeliverable, the
single biggest reason that jurors fail to respond or appear for service is arguably because they never
received the jury summons.
Of the 5,000 letters sent for the study, an additional
244 letters were returned to the District Clerk’s Office
marked undeliverable by the USPS.
Of those responding, 71% indicated that they had lived at the same address for more than 24
months, which suggests that inaccurate addresses on the master jury list or inadequate service by
the USPS may be a major factor.
Inability to serve on reporting date
Approximately 25% of respondents indicated that they were unable to serve on the reporting date. Of
these respondents, 83% were unaware that they could reschedule the reporting date if necessary.
Ineligibility
Some individuals reported they did not appear for jury service because they were ineligible. Of
the 17 individuals that indicated ineligibility, the most common disqualification was limited English
proficiency (LEP) (53%). Other disqualifications included physical or mental disabilities (24%),
nonresident status (18%), and felony backgrounds (6%). No respondent reported lack of citizenship
status as a reason for disqualification, despite 37% of Harris County’s adult Hispanic population
being noncitizen. The lack of responses referring to citizenship begs the question of whether these
individuals simply declined to disclose this information, or they are not on the master jury list, and
thus not being summoned, or if they are a significant number of FTA jurors and likewise failed to
respond to the survey.
Exemption
Other participants believed that they were exempt from jury service (13%). These individuals
indicated that they were full-time students, over the age of 70, or full-time caregivers for a minor or
incapacitated adult.
8 | Juror Non-Response and Failure-to-Appear: Report and Recommendations for Harris County
Other reasons
Participants also indicated that they forgot about jury service (2), they served on a different date (2),
and they didn’t have faith in the justice system (1). One participant gave no reason but indicated that
they were disappointed they couldn’t serve. Several respondents selected “other” in the survey, but
their answers were recoded to fit into the above categories.
Version 1 respondents were also given a list of statements that are often offered for nonresponse/
FTA and asked if they applied to them. It is notable that none of these “other reasons” were selected
more often than the barriers identified above. Statements that jury service is a waste of time, that
they did not have enough education to serve, and that juror compensation was inadequate were
the statements endorsed by survey respondents. Less common answers included having previous
experiences with the criminal justice system and feeling like they would not be selected due to race
or ethnic background.
Figure 2: Other reasons the person could not serve (n=104)
I believe jury service is a waste of time.
I do not have enough education to serve.
My employer will not pay me during jury service.
I am a victim of crime or have a close relationship to a crime victim.
I do not believe jury trials are fair.
I have previous experience with the criminal justice system.
My employer will not give me time off to serve.
I have religious beliefs that prevent me from serving.
I would not be selected due to my race or ethnic background.
10%
10%
10%
7%
4%
4%
3%
3%
1%
9 | Juror Non-Response and Failure-to-Appear: Report and Recommendations for Harris County
Version 2 Findings
Respondents in Version 2 answered a set of questions that paralleled the questions in Version 1,
except the questions were generalized to ask about someone that did not appear for jury service.
Figure 3 visualizes the variety of answers provided, with no reason standing out with a clear majority
of “frequent” responses.
With slight variety in the order, the responses in Version 2 were similar to the responses in Version
1. The most prevalent reason was hardships (47%). Eligibility (43%), not being able to serve on the
reporting date (42%), and exemption (40%) were also prevalent answers among respondents.
Version 2 respondents also answered open-ended questions about why people don’t respond to
jury summons, some of which may reflect their own reasons. In their responses, seven participants
reiterated the issue of physical or mental health hardships; five participants referenced ineligibility
due to nonresident status, LEP, and criminal history; five participants mentioned a fear or dislike
of driving downtown; and five participants described experiences problems with mail, including
late notice. Others mentioned burnout from multiple summons, indifference to or unwillingness to
serve, forgetting to appear, inadequate pay that doesn’t make up for lost income or parking, lack of
education, and jury service not making a difference.
Figure 3: Reasons people fail to respond to a jury summons
They had a hardship that prevented them from serving (n=38)
They are not eligible for jury service (n=42)
They could not serve on the date summoned (n=41)
They are exempt from jury service (n=35)
They believe jury service is a waste of time (n=35)
They have previous experience with the criminal justice system (n=36)
They did not receive their jury summons (n=45)
Their employer will not pay them during jury service (n=35)
They are a victim of crime or have a close relationship to a crime victim (n=36)
They do not have enough education to serve (n=36)
They have religious beliefs tha prevent them from serving (n=36)
They do not believe jury trials are fair (n=35)
Their employer will not give them time off to serve (n=35)
They would not be selected due to their race or ethnic background (n=35)
13% 40% 47%
21% 36% 43%
22% 37% 42%
20% 40% 40%
31% 34% 34%
22% 44% 33%
37% 37% 26%
31% 47% 22%
28% 50% 22%
69% 14% 17%
56% 31% 14%
57% 34% 9%
54% 37% 9%
60% 37% 3%
Rarely Sometimes Frequently
10 | Juror Non-Response and Failure-to-Appear: Report and Recommendations for Harris County
Insights from Interviews
The individuals who participated in interviews with
RTI staff largely mirrored the survey respondents
with respect to their reasons for failing to respond
to the jury summons. Eight reported that they did
not receive a jury summons or received it after the
reporting date had passed. Six indicated that they
had a hardship of some type. Others indicated their
belief that they were not qualified (2), that they had
a conflict with the reporting date (1), that they simply
forgot (1), or offered a different reason or no reason
(6). Notably, most individuals who received the
summons believed that they didn’t need to respond
to the summons if they were unable to serve.
Respondents offered a variety of suggestions to
encourage response rates, including increasing the
per diem amount, reimbursing parking expenses,
providing translation services for LEP individuals,
providing transportation such as a metro pass or
bus voucher, providing childcare, and fining people
who fail to appear for service.
Two respondents indicated that the courthouse
needed to be more accessible, noting that it was
not designed “for older people and those with health
issues” and that is “stressful to get there and get in
and out.” Further, one respondent explained, “I live
in the outskirts of Houston and it’s hard for me to get
around. More money wouldn’t change my mind.”
Respondents indicated secondary concerns
about the safety of downtown Houston, even if
transportation barriers were addressed, and two
people suggested allowing jury service at a variety
of locations throughout the area. One respondent
suggested providing door-to-door car shuttle service
and/or reimbursing expenses for a rideshare service
(e.g., Uber or Lyft).
11 | Juror Non-Response and Failure-to-Appear: Report and Recommendations for Harris County
Conclusions and
Recommendations
It is perhaps ironic that a study of factors related
to juror nonresponse and failure-to-appear rates
suffered from a disappointing survey response
rate. Project staff had hoped for at least a 10%
response rate, which was achieved, but only if the
letters that were returned undeliverable by USPS
are included in the tally. In terms of the demographic
characteristics of the survey respondents, there were
no conspicuous demographic distortions that might
suggest that the views of discrete categories of age,
race, or ethnicity were insufficiently represented in
the findings. But there is a lingering question about
whether the views and experiences of individuals
who responded to the survey can be reliably
generalized to those of individuals who not only
failed to respond or appear for jury service, but also
failed to respond to the survey.
To address this possibility, the District Clerk should consider administering Survey 2 to court users
who appear in person for other court proceedings or to conduct other court business. A larger
sample size would either validate the study findings or bring to light new insights that were not
identified in the current study. Using interns or court volunteers for this purpose would also provide
additional opportunities for impromptu interviews with court users about their experience with jury
service and their suggestions for improving response rates.
The findings from this study of juror nonresponse and failure-to-appear were similar in most respects
to the 1998 AJS Study. In particular, problems related to the delivery of jury summonses by USPS
appear to be significantly related to nonresponse and failure-to-appear rates in Harris County.
Nearly 5% of the survey letters were returned and marked undeliverable, leading to the reasonable
conclusion that those individuals likewise did not receive the jury summons. More than one-third of
Survey 1 respondents reported not receiving a jury summons, despite having lived at their address
for more than 24 months. A similar proportion of Survey 2 respondents cited not receiving the
summons as a frequent reason why jurors fail to respond or appear for service. Thus, a sizeable
proportion of the nonresponse and FTA rate may be unreturned undeliverable summons rather than
recalcitrant jurors.
5
In addition, several respondents and interviewees reported that the summons
5
The undeliverable rate for jury summonses for the Harris County District Court was 15% in 2022, which is somewhat higher than
the national average of 11%, but comparable to the undeliverable rate for one-step jury operations in urban areas.
Recommendations to Increase
Response and Participation in
Jury Service in Harris County
Minimize the impact of untimely
and undelivered mailings
by adjusting timeframes and
improving address accuracy.
Improve design and content
of jury communications
including the summons and jury
information website to increase
comprehension.
Minimize transportation
barriers through collaborations
with Justice of the Peace Courts
12 | Juror Non-Response and Failure-to-Appear: Report and Recommendations for Harris County
was received too late for them to make arrangements to serve, including after the reporting date had
already passed. Timely mail delivery also appears to be problematic with respect to documentation
(doctor’s affidavits, for example) that were mailed back to the court. As a result, some survey
respondents were misidentified as jurors who failed to respond or appear for jury service when, in
fact, the documentation to be exempt or excused from jury service was not received by the court in a
timely manner.
The Office of the Inspector General for USPS routinely reports on the quality of postal service
delivery in the United States.
6
While service delivery improved overall in 2023, Texas Postal Division
2, which includes the Houston metropolitan area, is approximately 3 percentage points lower than
its target of 93% delivery for first class mailing within 2 days. This poses an ongoing challenge to
the District Clerk with respect to timely delivery of jury summonses. In the near term, it may require
the District Clerk to increase the timeframe for mailing jury summonses to allow sufficient time for
jurors to receive and respond to their summons, including the return and processing of required
documentation related to disqualification, exemption, or hardship.
Because inaccurate and stale addresses contribute both to the known undeliverable rate for jury
summons and to at least some portion of the nonresponse and FTA rates, the District Clerk should
also confirm whether the Secretary of State routinely employs practices intended to ensure the
accuracy of addresses, including refreshing the master list at least annually and employing an
NCOA
Link
vendor to update addresses for individuals who have filed a forwarding address with
USPS. If these practices are not routinely employed during the master jury list creation process, the
Harris County District Clerk should implement them locally before summoning jurors from the new
list. In addition, the District Clerk should explore the feasibility of maintaining a database of record
changes reported by jurors (e.g., name changes, address changes) as well as jury summonses
returned as undeliverable by the USPS. This information can then be used to ensure that correct
information is not replaced by incorrect information when the master jury list is refreshed.
Both Survey 1 and Survey 2 respondents indicated that personal hardships involving poor health,
employment, transportation, childcare, or a conflict with the reporting date were the most frequent
reasons for failure to respond or appear for service. Many of these hardships appeared legitimate
and the jurors would likely have been excused from service, but most seemed unaware about
how to request an excusal, deferral, or other assistance. Although information about seeking an
excusal from jury service is included with the jury summons and on the District Clerk’s website, the
information may not be communicated clearly enough for most jurors to understand.
For example, the FAQ webpage includes the question “Who can be excused from jury service?” The
answer, however, refers only to persons who have been convicted of a felony, are on probation, or
are under indictment; it offers no information about individuals seeking to be excused for hardship.
Information about medical exemptions appears much further down the list of FAQs, but it is not
6
An interactive dashboard of USPS service performance by Postal District and Division is available at
https://www.uspsoig.gov/our-work/service-performance.
13 | Juror Non-Response and Failure-to-Appear: Report and Recommendations for Harris County
phrased as a question, so individuals may not understand that they must click on the FAQ to access
the medical exemption form. To improve jurors’ comprehension of website information, the FAQs
should be written as plain English questions. For example:
I have a physical or mental impairment that prevents me from serving. How can I be
excused from jury service?
I cannot drive to the courthouse. Can the Court help with transportation?
Can I reschedule my jury service to a more convenient date?
About one-quarter of Survey 1 respondents believed that they were either ineligible for jury service
or could claim an exemption, but they nevertheless failed to inform the court. Some may believe that
the District Clerk already possesses that information, making it unnecessary for them to expressly
notify the Court. The single most important directive expressed in the jury summons is that the
prospective juror must respond to the jury summons, ideally by preregistering on the District Clerk’s
Jury website or alternatively by returning the completed juror qualification questionnaire by mail or
in person. Completing this fundamental step, which includes providing contact information for future
communication, provides Jury Services staff with sufficient information to follow up on incomplete
or missing documentation in a timely manner. All other information contained in the jury summons
is secondary, including recognition that some jurors may have a hardship that prevents them from
service and the Court will make reasonable accommodations (deferrals, other assistance) to address
those hardships.
Over the past two decades, many courts have adopted the use of postcards to summon jurors,
rather than full letter-sized jury summonses. In addition to reduced postage costs, these courts often
report improved response rates, ostensibly because the limited space on the postcard provides
only enough room to inform recipients that they must appear for jury service at a specified date
and location and directs them to the court’s website to confirm their eligibility before reporting.
Prospective jurors are less likely to become confused compared to jurors who must read lengthy
instructions and information about qualifications, exemptions, other deferrals or accommodations for
hardship, and other information about jury service. The District Clerk should consider a pilot test to
determine whether this approach would improve response rates.
Finally, many jurors who agreed to be interviewed expressed reservations about having to travel
to downtown Houston, even if juror compensation and other travel barriers were addressed. To
assuage their concerns, the District Court might consider implementing a cooperative agreement
with Harris County Justice of the Peace Courts, which are located in heavily populated areas
throughout the county, to allow qualified jurors to serve in those courts rather than having to travel to
downtown.
7
7
Jury operations for the Justice of the Peace Courts in Dallas County, Texas, including summoning and qualication, are
managed by the Dallas County District Clerk’s Ofce.
Appendix
HOUSTON TX 77002
1201 CONGRESS AVE
MARILYN BURGESS DISTRICT CLERK
OFFICIAL JURY SUMMONS
MARILYN BURGESS, HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK
If you have any questions or
need any assistance,
call the Jury Room staff at 713-755-6392
Monday – Friday 10:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
This jury summons is for an essential
matter and requires your immediate
action
.
Jury Room Opens at 7:00am
www.hcdistrictclerk.com/jury
STEP 1: Login on to www.hcdistrictlerk.com/jury or scan the QR code.
STEP 2: Review the qualifications to determine if you are qualified to
serve.
STEP 3: Review the optional exemptions and decide if you wish to claim.
STEP 4: Review the date assigned and reschedule if needed.
SHERIFF ED GONZALEZ HEREBY SUMMONS YOU TO APPEAR FOR JURY SERVICE
*00000000*
HC 00000000
JUROR # 6001-14
DATE: Apr 14, 2022
TIME: 2:25 PM
PLACE: 1201 CONGRESS AVE, HOUSTON TX 77002
Appendix
JUROR'S RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Right to Reemployment: A private employer may not terminate the employment of a permanent
employee because the employee serves as a juror. An employee whose employment is
terminated in violation of this Section is entitled to return to the same employment that he or she
held when summoned for jury service if the employee, as soon as practical after release from jury
service, gives the employer actual notice that he or she intends to return. (Civil Practice and
Remedies Code section 122.001)
Proper Attire Required: All persons entering the courtroom should be dressed in clothing
reasonably befitting the dignity and solemnity of the court proceedings. (e.g., shorts, tank tops, or
t-shirts with derogatory images or messages are not permitted).
Claiming Health Exemptions: If you have health issues that would prohibit you from serving,
you must mail or fax proof of disability or a statement from your physician. Forms are also
available on our website.
Persons claiming the lack of citizenship will no longer be eligible to vote if the person fails provide
proof of citizenship.
Persons claiming the lack of residency in the county might no longer be eligible to vote in the
county. (Gov't. Code 62.0142)
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? PLEASE CALL US AT 713-755-639
2
**Phone lines open from 10:00am-4:30pm**
The following reasons disqualify you from jury serv
ice.
Check any box that applies to you:
You may be exempted from jury service if:
Check any box that applies to you if you wish to cl
aim an exemption