Man, folks have difficulty reading! I NEVER, NEVER said that one does not have a right to a trial by a jury. From a logical perspective (folks around here seem to have a difficult time grasping that word), though, having a jury AUTOMATICALLY present for hearing arguments about traffic violations is a HUGE, HUGE waste of time, effort, and money. The Texas court system would be wise to concentrate such processes on WAY MORE serious crimes
The way it works is the county calls a jury pool (in a large urban county there may be 300 or more jurors in the pool and there may be more than one pool each week day) that is available to serve
in any court in the county and may or may not located at the county court house. When a judge needs a jury panel to select from the jury room is contacted and a group of potential jurors is sent to that court, the number sent is determined by the requesting judge. Any juror in the pool may be empaneled for anything from a major criminal or civil case lasting many days or weeks to a misdemeanor trial such as the one under discussion that typically lasts less than an hour. So while there was a jury panel standing by somewhere, it was not necessarily at the particular court house and most certainly not for a particular court or trial.
Depending on the county a jury pool's lifespan is anywhere from 4 hours in some large urban counties up to a week or more in small rural counties. Where the pool's lifespan lasts more than a day it is a typical practice to allow the panel to go home or to work but they must remain available when a jury panel is requested. When a jury panel is sent to a court the jurors undergo
voir dire by both the defense and the prosecution and may or may not be selected to actually sit on the jury or in the case of an extended trial they may be selected as alternates in case a jury member becomes unable to serve for any reason. The system is both effective and efficient.
All of that may be fine and efficient, but to use a jury for hearing arguments related to traffic violations (at least ones that are not "too serious") is, to me, a HUGE waste of time and resources.
Now that I think about it, Washington actually has traffic courts already set up in just about all jurisdictions, and thus there is no "choosing" of a jury needed. Again, seems WAY more cost effective and efficient.
By the way, Oregon is another state that is progressive (and efficient) like Washington. About 5 years ago, I received a speeding violation south of Bend, Oregon (about a 6 hour drive from where I live). Due to my excellent driving record, I was given the option of electing to take an on-line course, and I accomplished ALL of that on line and through the mail. I wonder if a state like Texas would require me to make an appearance in court to ask for such an option? As it is, with the first two options one has after receiving a traffic violation in Texas, apparently a court appearance is still required. In Washington, if one just pleads guilty right away, they can just mail in the fine to the appropriate court/jurisdiction. No court appearance is needed. And, as I stated before, at least in Washington, one has the reasonable option of having his case "mediated", and even though the defendant is "kind of" admitting guilt, at least there is an excellent chance of getting the fine reduced. And, there is no jury trial for that. The defendant just meets one on one with a court-appointed individual, and discussions ensue between them. Seems reasonable and efficient to me.
