SB 370 revises Montana law governing jury duty compensation. The bill would increase the daily per diem for individuals summoned for jury service from $25 to $60, and it would also increase the additional daily amount paid to jurors selected to serve on a case from $13 to $60. The bill keeps the existing mileage allowance for travel to and from court and retains the rule that a person who is excused on the first day or who is summoned as a special juror but not sworn forfeits per diem and mileage.
The bill also creates a funding mechanism for criminal cases by directing the Office of Court Administrator to reimburse courts of record for the added jury-duty costs. Courts seeking reimbursement would have to submit an invoice within 30 days after the end of a criminal trial or, if a criminal case settles after the jury has been required to report or has been empaneled, within 30 days of that settlement. In effect, the bill shifts the financial burden of the higher juror payments in criminal matters to a state-level reimbursement process rather than leaving counties to absorb the full cost.
Impact
SB 370 would amend section 3-15-201, MCA, changing the statutory compensation rates for jury attendance and jury service and adding a new reimbursement provision for criminal cases. It would directly affect jurors, county courts of record, and the Office of Court Administrator by increasing juror pay obligations and establishing a claims process for state reimbursement. The bill would also have budgetary implications for the judicial branch and state finances because of the higher per diem amounts and the new funding allocation.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have received generally favorable consideration in the Senate, passing Judiciary, moving through second and third readings, and advancing through the House Judiciary and House floor with substantial support. However, it encountered more resistance in the House Appropriations Committee, where the vote to table the bill was closer, suggesting concern about the fiscal impact of increasing juror compensation and creating a reimbursement obligation. Overall, the legislative history suggests broad support for improving jury pay, tempered by budgetary caution.
Contention
The main point of contention is cost: supporters appear to favor raising jury pay to better compensate citizens for service, while opponents or skeptics likely focused on the fiscal burden on the state and courts. The House Appropriations Committee’s decision to table the bill indicates that funding the increased payments was the most significant obstacle. Another possible issue is the reimbursement structure itself, including the administrative requirement that courts file invoices within a short deadline after criminal trials or settlements.