Request By:
Mr. Don Cetrulo
Director
Administrative Office of the Courts
403 Wapping Street
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; By: Charles W. Runyan, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
You seek our opinion on a portion of KRS 30A.110(1), which reads:
"(1) Each clerk shall pay to each juror, each jury commissioner, and to each witness the compensation allowed to him by law, under appropriations provided by the general assembly and in accordance with procedures governing expenditures from appropriations. He shall take a receipt for each payment made by him showing the date on which payment is made. A cancelled check shall be the equivalent of a receipt."
For approximately one year the courts have been utilizing a standard form which indicates the name of the juror, the number of days served, and the amount paid to each juror, with the judge being required to certify the accuracy thereof. Disbursements are made to each juror by check, and the cancelled checks are available for audit.
Your letter reads in part:
"Recently, the Finance and Administration Cabinet has determined that in its opinion the statute requires not only a cancelled check but an entirely separate signature of the juror at the time the check is issued. The difficulty with this interpretation is that it imposes a considerable inconvenience on jurors. It is typically the case that the time in which a juror must be available for jury service, he will actually serve one or more times and be finally excused by a message recorded on an ansaphone in the clerk's office. The jurors are paid at the end of the jury service and therefore, it is necessary for the juror to make a special trip to receive his payment, if he is to be required to sign for the check as opposed to receiving it in the mail.
"In addition to constituting an inconvenience for jurors, a policy of requiring them to sign for the checks may result in higher jury costs in that it is certainly arguable that requiring the juror to appear in order to be discharged constitutes another day of jury service for which the juror will have to be paid the regular rate."
Your questions read:
"1. Is the practice of the judge certifying the proper payments and retention of the cancelled checks in the clerk's office sufficient to satisfy the statute?
"2. If a juror must appear personally to accept and sign for the check, is he entitled to be credited with a day of jury service? "
We note that if the jurors are required to furnish a signature, apart from the cancelled check, it would result in inconvenience to the juror and possibly higher juror costs, since it technically results in another appearance, which could entitle the juror to the rate for court service.
We observe that the procedure used clearly reflects the identity or name of the juror called, the days of work or appearance, the date paid, the check number, and amount, plus the availability of the cancelled check and signed approval of the judge for such payment.
While KRS 30A.110(1) provides in part that "He (the clerk) shall take a receipt for each payment made by him showing the date on which payment is made," the statute in the same breath states that "A cancelled check shall be the equivalent of a receipt." (Emphasis added).
It is thus our opinion that the practice employed by the courts is a clear and substantial compliance with the statute in accounting for the imprest fund. In addition, it is an orderly procedure calculated to minimize the cost to the government. The cancelled check is clearly an alternative to the signed receipt of the juror. The availability of the retained cancelled checks for audit is sufficient. The circuit judge in certifying payment under the present system is clearly acting within his province, and the amount ordered to be paid by the judge must be presumed to be correct, in the absence of anything to rebut that assumption.
Stone v. Saunders, 106 Ky. 904, 51 S.W. 788 (1899); and
Meredith v. Sampson, 277 Ky. 263, 126 S.W.2d 124 (1939) 125.
As to the second question, if a juror were required to appear personally to accept and sign for the check (we have said above that mailing the check is sufficient), it is our opinion that a good case for his being paid for an additional day of service would be made out.
KRS 29A.170 provides:
"(1) All jurors in circuit and district court shall be paid five dollars ($5.00) per day for jury service. In addition thereto, they shall be paid seven dollars and fifty cents ($7.50) per day as reimbursement of expenses incurred, which sum is hereby determined to be the equivalent of the minimum daily expenses reasonably to be incurred by such juror.
"(2) Persons who appear in court in response to a summons for jury duty and who are not relieved from jury service shall receive full compensation for each day they are required to be and are in attendance, even though they are not sworn or accepted for jury service. "
If the law imposes a duty of the juror to return to the court to accept and sign for his check, then such requirement would arise solely and wholly out of his being originally summoned for jury service. Thus the required extra trip to the court, if it were required by law (we say it is not required by statute) would simply be an extension of his "jury service" , although he would not be sitting on a jury. Under that assumption and circumstances, the juror would technically be entitled to another day's pay. To that extent, until he so appears for his check and signature, he would not be technically released from jury service until he makes that last trip to the court.
As we said in answer to question no. 1, the trip to sign for and receive the juror check is not required. If it were, then the courts would no doubt say, if presented with the problem, that it will not be presumed that the legislature directed the doing of a vain thing.