On a recent Friday, a few dozen people who allegedly failed to show up for jury duty got a firsthand look at how Richmond’s courts work, whether they wanted to or not.

They had been summoned to appear before a judge at 11 a.m. to answer for their failure to respond to jury duty notices sent out in the mail. 

Dealing with a group of no-show jurors at once meant the court could handle it speedily, but the exercise also came with a slice of the monotony that leads many to groan at the thought of having to spend a day (or several) at the courthouse.

Because there were several criminal matters to deal with involving more serious disregard for society’s rules, the delinquent jurors had a long wait before it was their turn with the judge.

Over nearly three hours, the citizens who had been summoned got a glimpse of the real-life stakes involved in courtroom judgement calls.

There was a gut-wrenching sentencing hearing for a Richmond man who had grown up in an atmosphere of poverty and abuse. After spending most of his adulthood locked up for a crime shortly after he graduated high school, he was trying to get a fresh start in life as a new father. But after seriously injuring a teenager in a fight described as a group brawl, he was back in trouble.

He protested that he was only trying to protect the mother of his young child in a chaotic situation and isn’t the “monster” he was made out to be. The judge remembered the defendant well from the last time he was in front of her, and said she was disappointed to see a second chance squandered so quickly. When it became clear the man was going back to incarceration for a long while, his supporters wept.

When a weapons case came up, the judge had to decide whether to grant bond to a man accused of fleeing police and stashing a gun in an apartment he allegedly barged into, even though the defendant’s attorneys argued there was no evidence the firearm was his.

In an example of how bureaucratic errors can and do happen in the criminal justice system, the judge had to sort out why one defendant didn’t show for a hearing even though he was in law enforcement custody. After a closer look at the transport paperwork sent to the sheriff’s office, the judge realized the form didn’t spell out which jail the man was in.

When all those matters were settled, Judge Devika A. Davis descended from the bench to speak to the people called for jury duty on a more personal level.

“Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I had hoped to say ‘good morning’ to you,” the judge said, explaining she had ended up with a fuller docket than normal that day, which had delayed the 11 a.m. jury service issue to about 1:30 p.m.

Addressing nearly 20 people, Davis said that failing to appear for jury service can bring a contempt of court finding and a fine of up to $250. 

“We have many trials,” she said. “And there are so few jurors available.”

Between July 2025 and June 2026, there were 300 cases of no-show jurors, according to data provided by Circuit Court Clerk Ed Jewett.

The judge said the punishment would be waived for everyone who agreed to sign up for a new jury duty date after missing the first one.

“Some or all of you may have very good excuses,” Davis said, after reminding the attendees they had a right to a lawyer if they wanted to formally contest the proceedings.

Most in the group stood to accept the judge’s offer and walked out to sign up for another round of duty. But some stayed behind to press their case.

As the judge expected, many had excuses that sounded valid.

“I’m an emergency room provider,” said one young woman. “So I can’t exactly call out.”

Another woman said she had an out-of-town conference for work on the date she was supposed to serve. She explained she had called the listed jury-service phone number to leave a voice mail saying as much.

“They still wrote me down for a no-show,” the woman said.

One prospective juror said she had indeed showed up in her scheduled day, despite the court paperwork showing she didn’t. The judge verified the juror was right, dismissed her from the proceedings and instructed court staff to ensure the juror got the $50 pay she was entitled to for responding when called.

Multiple older Richmonders brought proof of medical issues that they said made it impractical for them to serve on juries.

One man said he had never been summoned for jury duty when he was young, and didn’t understand why he was being called for the first time at 70 years old when his memory is getting “real bad.”

“I just forgot,” the man said. “And I’ve got a whole lot of health stuff going on with my heart. I don’t think they should impose a fine.”

The judge said she didn’t need to see anyone’s proof of medical hardship, but reminded the group that the proper time to make that case was when they received the first jury summons. 

“It’s the court’s determination whether or not someone is suitable for jury service,” Davis said.

No matter the outcome of that day’s proceedings, Davis said, anyone in the room could be called for jury duty again.

“I can impose a fine of $250,” the judge said. “But you can get a jury summons the next week.”

One young man said he had just gotten married in May and was in the process of moving when he got a jury summons. He wasn’t sure if he was eligible to serve on a Richmond jury if he wasn’t living in Richmond.

“I’d be happy to serve,” he said.

He left the courtroom, but later returned to ask the judge if he could get some sort of formal paperwork to prove he had shown up to resolve his jury service issue.

“I guess I’m just scared,” he said.

The judge reassured him it wasn’t meant to be a scary process.

“This is not attached to you, really, in any way,” Davis said.

The delinquent jurors who didn’t show up to the hearing to make amends for their first no-show were put in a list of people who would be summoned again. The possibility of a $250 fine was not wiped clean for them.

Contact Reporter Graham Moomaw at gmoomaw@richmonder.org