> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Finding 12 angry men is easier said than done
- URL: https://www.smdp.com/finding-12-angry-men-is-easier-said-than-done/
- Published: 2005-01-15T16:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-23T06:00:44.000Z
- Author: Guest Author
- Tags: Crime, Santa Monica Airport, #archive-import

*CALL TO DUTY, from page 1 Runaway jurors eventually have to pay the price*

*By DIDIER DIELS Special to the Daily Press*

SM COURTHOUSE — In the end, Jaime Toribio’s repeated attempts to avoid a courtroom landed him squarely within one Friday. He had three summons to appear for jury duty, a mailer to explain his reasoning for being absent and another chance to appear in Santa Monica Court last week.

When Judge Craig Karlan asked him on Friday why — even after departing his job as a welder — he failed to show up, the sanctioned juror’s blushed just a bit.

“Uh, I don’t know,” he replied. If Toribio serves his summons, appearing at the Airport Courthouse on the morning of Feb. 28, and staying until whatever time more the judge requests, Judge Karlan will reduce his fine from $250 to $50.

“It’s not about the money,” Judge Karlan said from his courtroom, where potential jurors plead for reduced fines or exemptions from serving jury duty. “I think this is a money losing venture. The goal is to get people to serve.”

Karlan said he expected about 30 of the 126 runaway jurors called to appear before him on Friday. Five showed up.

“Yes, I expected more,” Karlan said. “On the flip side, it might be a good thing. Maybe more people are showing up (when first called).”

In the West District, which includes Santa Monica, Culver City, Van Nyes, Malibu and Beverly Hills, more than 10,000 absent jurors are currently being sought after they neglected to serve or even provide a reasonable excuse for not serving.

Since a 1999 court rule established “one day, one trial,” everyone must show up for jury selection or mail in an allowable excuse once a year.

Meanwhile, the fines for failing to appear have actually dropped dramatically over the last two years. Failing to appear in 2002 would cost a potential juror $1,500, while the first-year fine now stands at just $250\. However, the penalties rise in time.

On Friday, the elusive jurors faced $250 fines for failing to appear at first, $750 for disregarding the summons a second year, and $1,500 for a third negligence.

At the reduced cost of $50, if he finally serves in February, Toribio’s punishment was the stiffest of the five doled out on Friday. Three had their fines vacated entirely, all for medical reasons, while Brandon Watson of Gardena, who missed duty to attend class at a pharmaceutical technical college, was ordered to pay $35, that is if he shows up on March 7.

“If I went down to zero, that wouldn’t send the message we’re trying to get across,” Judge Karlan said.

Asked what excuses were considered sufficient for an absence, the justice preferred not to provide a cheat sheet.

“I think David Letterman has a top ten list,” he mused. “Maybe you should ask him.”

Those who failed to appear Friday, even if Friday was their second of two possible dates to appear, will still get some leniency from the judge and can still avoid or reduce any fines if they show up either Jan. 21 or Feb. 4... and can spin a good yarn.

If not, they will receive a fine by mail. If they don’t pay, their names go to GC Services, a private collection agency. Then, the state comes after their credit report.

Judge Karlan himself had his court shut down for five days in late October while he waited to answer lawyer’s questions in jury selection for a capital punishment case. He was dismissed as a juror.

“I know what it’s like sitting in hallways,” the judge said. “The most frustrating thing is I didn’t actually get to serve.

“When people serve on jury duty, they come away loving it,” he added. “I mean, what are all the big shows on TV about?”

*Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on January 15, 2005.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/011505.pdf?ref=smdp.com)