Jury duty, as exceptional as it is, is not without consequences for mental health. Indeed, during this assignment, randomly selected citizens are called on to judge people accused of criminal acts, to decide on their guilt and, if necessary, on their sentence. Thus, in court trials, the juror's voice will count just as that of the professional judges who sit with them. However, this enormous responsibility and the imperative aspect of jury duty can cause significant stress, especially when we consider that very often, jurors only have a limited knowledge of the judicial system. Also, being exposed to various types of evidence and to serious facts can be trying. Finally, the various obligations jurors have to meet can accentuate the difficulty of this duty, for example, the fact that, because the procedure is subject to sanctions, the jurors cannot discuss the case with others and must respect the secrecy of deliberations, even after the judgment has been rendered. For all these reasons, and also sometimes because of pre-existing individual vulnerabilities, the jury duty experience can lead to a variety of psychological difficulties, difficulties that are still not sufficiently taken into account. Although several forms of care are emerging today, such treatments remain varied and unequally available throughout the country. This article has multiple purposes. First, it aims to enumerate the possible consequences of jury duty on mental health, then, to present an inventory of what is actually available in terms of care in France. Finally, this inventory leads us to the possible intervention in several stages which could be made available to jurors, thereby offering a comprehensive and generalized support. A review of French and international literature was carried out, highlighting the main consequences of jury duty on mental health and the emergence of care systems, particularly in North America and France. Several studies stress the impact of jury duty on mental health, particularly in terms of stress, anxiety disorder and/or post-traumatic symptomatology. While support systems have emerged particularly in Canada, some have also gradually begun to be put in place in France, but they differ from one area to another, and they are not systematically made available. Some of them focus exclusively on post-trial support, while others also offer an upstream prevention phase. Finally, in terms of evaluation, the effectiveness of those interventions is estimated only by the participant's satisfaction, without any systematization or assurance of the real effectiveness of these interventions. Considering the available data in the literature and the various existing support systems, a proposal for a system of generalized support to jurors has been put forth in order to argue in favor of the adoption of this type of care. Indeed, in addition to a post-trial intervention, it seems important to plan for a phase of pre-trial prevention and the presentation of a treatment protocol, before the actual trial begins. Particularly, this should encourage jurors to more willingly take part in the post-trial intervention should signs of stress and anxiety emerge. Finally, it appears necessary to systematize the evaluation of the effectiveness of those support systems other than simply in terms of the satisfaction of the participants.