What evidence do Colorado trial courts find persuasive when deciding medical jury excusal or postponement?
Executive summary
Colorado trial courts treat documentary medical proof as the backbone of any request to be excused or postponed from jury service: a written statement from a licensed medical professional that identifies the juror, the appearance date, and whether the limitation is temporary or permanent is routinely required and often dispositive at the administrative stage [1] [2]. The statutory framework and court practice give judges and jury commissioners judicial discretion to evaluate that medical evidence, keep it confidential, and to require juror testimony or additional documentation when the claim is contested [3] [4].
1. Medical statements on official letterhead — the threshold of credibility
The most persuasive evidence is a contemporaneous medical statement on official letterhead from a licensed provider that explicitly states the juror “cannot perform jury duty” or identifies functional limitations and the expected duration; Colorado’s jury pages and county forms demand such documentation and say the note should list the juror’s appearance date and juror number [1] [2]. Municipal and district forms echo that requirement: several county and city pages instruct prospective jurors that any illness or medical condition preventing appearance “will require a written doctor’s statement” and that statements should indicate whether the excusal is temporary or permanent [5] [6].
2. Substance matters — functional, not just diagnostic, statements carry weight
Courts and guidance emphasize functional ability — whether the person “can perform satisfactory juror service” or is “unable to continue until a verdict is reached” — over mere diagnoses, so letters that describe concrete limits (e.g., inability to sit for long periods, need for continuous care, or infectious disease concerns) are stronger evidence than vague complaints [4] [7]. The Colorado Uniform Jury Selection and Service Act anticipates this functional assessment by allowing judges to make excusal determinations and to classify excuses as temporary or permanent based on the supporting documentation [3].
3. Duration and specificity determine temporary versus permanent relief
A medical statement that specifies an expected recovery date supports a postponement; evidence of a chronic, unchanging incapacity supports permanent disqualification — the statute explicitly allows temporary excuses that expire and makes permanent excusal contingent on the judge or jury commissioner finding the condition permanent [3]. State guidance gives examples — breastfeeding permits temporary postponement with renewals, and the note should indicate the length of the excuse — underscoring that courts treat timeline and prognosis as decisive elements [2] [3].
4. Process: disclosure, confidentiality and possible inquiry
Although courts require documentary proof, they also reserve the right to question jurors or call them to testify about their representations; the statewide form warns that applicants “may be called to testify before the court,” while the statute protects medical statements from public disclosure, framing them as nonpublic records [4] [3]. This dual approach lets courts test credibility when necessary while protecting sensitive health information from public release [3].
5. Administrative discretion and local court skepticism
Practice varies by court: some municipal courts state they “rarely excuse” jurors absent clear medical documentation, reflecting an institutional interest in maintaining juror pools and avoiding overuse of excuses [5] [6]. Legal practitioners note that clerks or jury commissioners may require additional communications — a call to discuss accommodations or follow-up documentation — and that temporary injuries may only yield a deferment while permanent disabilities may justify permanent excusal [8].
6. Limits of the reporting and alternative viewpoints
The available materials are administrative guidance, statutes, and practitioner summaries; they show what evidence courts ask for and what factors courts consider persuasive, but do not include systematic judicial opinions cataloguing which specific types of medical evidence have been accepted or rejected in contested trials, so conclusions about fine-grained standards or inconsistent judicial rulings cannot be drawn from these sources alone [4] [3] [8]. Advocates for juror access might argue that strict documentary requirements can burden low-income or rural citizens, while courts and legislators counter that documentation preserves the integrity of the jury system — both views are reflected in the administrative emphasis on verifiable medical statements and procedural safeguards [1] [5].