Juries

Ohio's HB 265 and Giving Prosecutors the Right to Trial by Jury

Apparently, Ohio is one of 21 states that grant the right to request a jury trial solely and exclusively to the defendant.  The other jurisdictions to include the federal government give prosecutors some say in the process.  For example, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23 states that a defendant may only waive a trial by jury with the consent of the prosecution.  This provision has been upheld by the Supreme Court in Patton v. U.S. and Singer v. U.S. 

Recently, Ohio State Rep. Lynn Slaby, a former prosecutor, introduced HB 265. If enacted into law, this bill will allow prosecutors to request a jury trial in any case where the defendant has a similar right. HB 265 proponents, of which there are few outside of the prosecutor's office, like to point to the federal system as the reason why Ohio should change its laws.  One might argue that this rule is necessary on the federal level because federal judges have lifetime tenure.  Thus, if you are a prosecutor with a case involving a gun charge and you don't like how a particular judge deals with gun cases, you might want the option of going to the jury. However, that argument doesn't work as well in a state like Ohio where judges do not have lifetime tenure and regularly face reelection.

Must Jurors be able to Read and Write in English?

Yes, if Texas State Representative Dennis Bonnen has his way.  Rep. Bonnen is the author of HB 1633, a bill requiring that state jurors be able to read and write in English.  Rep. Bonnen claims that his legislation, which is already the law in 37 other states, is "common sense."

Others, like State Representative Roberto Alonzo, believe that this legislation is going to be a way of keeping Hispanics off of a jury. This will be a hidden opportunity to strike jurors because of race."  Finally, another group sees the issue as purely symbolic because jurors must already know how to read or write.  For this last group, adding the word English does little to change the current law.

By way of comparison, a person cannot serve on a federal jury if he/she:

(1) is not a citizen of the United States eighteen years old who has resided for a period of one year within the judicial district;

(2) is unable to read, write, and understand the English language with a degree of proficiency sufficient to fill out satisfactorily the juror qualification form;

(3) is unable to speak the English language;

(4) is incapable, by reason of mental or physical infirmity, to render satisfactory jury service; or

(5) has a charge pending against him for the commission of, or has been convicted in a State or Federal court of record of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year and his civil rights have not been restored.

For more information on HB 1633 see the article below.

Houston Chronicle: Bill says Texas juror must read, write English

 

Expedited Jury Trials

The article below, appearing in this month's California Bar Journal, examines the Expedited Jury Trials Act (AB 2284).  This pending legislation would allow the state to offer expedited civil jury trials in cases where the damages are between $10,000 and $30,000.  Similar trials have been used in both New York and South Carolina.

Expedited jury trials offer all litigants their day in court

Treated as regular civil trials, cases would be heard — on a date certain — before a judge and a jury of eight. Each side is limited to three peremptory challenges and must put on their case in three hours, including opening and closing arguments, with a goal of concluding the case in one day. Participation is voluntary, verdicts — reached by six jurors — are binding, and appeals and post-trial motions are strictly limited.

The standard rules of evidence would normally apply, but the parties could agree to relaxed rules. Witness lists, exhibits, proposed jury verdict forms, juror questionnaires and other materials are exchanged 25 days prior to trial. Evidentiary objections will be addressed at a pretrial conference, eliminating disputes during trial.

A key element is the high/low agreement by both plaintiff and defense: The plaintiff is guaranteed some recovery and the defense’s liability is capped. From the plaintiff’s point of view, he receives some money, even if the jury decides he is entitled to nothing. On the defense side, the high may be the insurance policy limit or less. Insurance carriers avoid excessive judgments and bad faith claims, and a defendant’s individual liability also is resolved. The high/low agreement is not disclosed to the jury.

Proponents of expedited trials believe cases where relatively small amounts of money — between $10,000 and $30,000 — are involved are most likely to go to quick trials. Relatively simple matters, such as small personal injury, slip-and-falls or small auto accidents, are prime candidates...to continue reading go here.

Louisiana Moves to Prevent the Publishing of Juror Names in the Newspaper

The Louisiana state legislature is taking the first steps to prevent the practice of publishing the names of jurors and potential jurors in the newspaper in state cases.  Last week, the Louisiana House Committee on the Administration of Criminal Justice voted in favor of legislation which would prohibit the publication of juror names.  Those speaking on behalf of the legislation argued that the current practice served no useful purpose and compromised juror safety.  Those opposing the new legislation argued (unsuccessfully) that publishing the names preserves the integrity of the criminal justice process.

To read more about the proposed changes go here.

Virginia May Require Jurors to Produce ID

According to the article below, a Virginia Senate Committee just approved legislation to require that jurors show identification upon request.  The bill's sponsor, Republican Sen. Mark Obenshain says that this legislation is necessary because there is the possibility that the juror could be "scamming" the system.

Virginia Pilot: Is Virginia at risk of phony jurors? Lawmaker says yes

New Jury Legislation Introduced in Massachusetts

As the article below highlights, Massachusetts is looking for ways to modernize its jury process.

State House News Service: Bills on the move to modernize juror summons process

Citing potential savings in the tens of thousands of dollars, the state’s jury commissioner says a pair of bills advancing in the House would help modernize the way the state interacts with prospective jurors...to continue reading go here.

NJ Closer to Increasing Penalties for Jury Tampering

The New Jersey Senate recently passed legislation to increase the penalty for tampering with jurors.  The legislation, S-2938, raises the penalty of tampering with a juror to a first degree offense if an individual uses threat or force against an official involved in the proceedings of crimes included in the "No Early Release Act." The upgraded penalty would raise the possible term of imprisonment for tampering with a juror to 10-20 years and a fine of up to $200,000.  This increase in penalties makes the crime of jury tampering consistent with the crimes of tampering with a witness or informant. Similar legislation has already passed the NJ Assembly.

New Ohio Jury Legislation

A new juror privacy bill (HB 327) has been introduced in the Ohio House of Representatives by Rep. Courtney Combs.  HB 327 will: prohibit jury tampering; exclude jury questionnaires and similar documents from public records requests; require all attorneys and parties to legal proceedings to return all jury questionnaires and other records or notations containing jurors' names, addresses, and phone numbers to the court at the conclusion of a trial; and prohibit juror harassment.

According to the article below, "Tom Shields, president of the Ohio Jury Management Association...agrees with HB 327's goal of protecting jurors' privacy, since he has frequently heard of opposition to questionnaires being made public record."

Bill aims to prohibit jury tampering, harassment

 

MI Supreme Court Tackles Jurors and Technology

Next week, the Michigan Supreme Court will hold a hearing on proposed courtroom instructions to jurors. These new instructions are in response to the increased incidents of jurors using new technology to either conduct research or report information about the case on which they sit. These new instructions, found below, place limits on jurors using either the internet or a cell phone during jury duty. To date, the Court has received some excellent feedback on the proposed language.  For those interested in submitting comments or appearing before the Supreme Court on May 12^th to talk about the proposed language, contact the Michigan Supreme Court's Clerk at P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909 or send an email to MSC_Clerk@courts.mi.gov.

Proposed Language

(1) After the jury is sworn and before evidence is taken, the court shall

give such preliminary instructions regarding the duties of the jury,

trial procedure, and the law applicable to the case as are reasonably

necessary to enable the jury to understand the proceedings and the

evidence. MCR 2.516(D)(2) does not apply to such preliminary

instructions. The court shall specifically instruct the jurors that they

shall not:

(a) discuss the case with others until deliberation begins, except

as otherwise authorized by the court;

(b) read or listen to any news reports about the case;

(c) use a computer, cellular phone, or other electronic device

with communication capabilities while in attendance at trial

or during deliberation;

(d) use a computer, cellular phone, or other electronic device

with communication capabilities to obtain information about

the case when they are not in court. As used in this

subsection, information about the case includes, but is not

limited to, the following:

(i) seeking information about the criminal record of a

party or witness;

(ii) reviewing news accounts of the case;

(iii) conducting research on any topics raised or testimony

offered by any witness;

(iv) researching any other information the juror might think

would be helpful, such as an aerial map of the scene.

(e) Any juror who observes or has reason to believe that another

juror has used an electronic device in violation of this rule

shall immediately inform the court of the violation.

 

Professor Valerie Hans Appears Before the NY Assembly

Noted jury expert, Professor Valerie Hans testified recently before the New York State Assembly. Her testimony, which is attached below, concerned the importance of jury diversity and how best to achieve it.  Professor Hans is well known for her work related to juries; she has published numerous law review articles and books on the topic.  According to the NY State Assembly, the purpose of the hearing in which Professor Hans testified was "to examine the need to expand and update source lists from which jury pools are created to ensure that they are representative of the communities from which they are drawn and to examine the benefits of retaining demographic data on jury pool participation."  For more information about Professor Hans' testimony go here.

Download Assembly_statement_draft_4-29-09