Trump Challenges the Jury Selection Process
On November 16, 2016, attorneys for defendants President-Elect Donald J. Trump and Trump University, LLC filed an ex parte motion to require the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California to provide them with information regarding the jury selection process in the case. The motion suggests that the court may not be compliant with the Jury Selection and Service Act. The motion further indicates that the attorneys want to be sure that the panel is a “fair cross section” of the community. It therefore seeks the following information.
- process for summoning prospective jurors;
- any lists and identifying information of prospective jurors pre-screened for hardship, excluded for hardship, and prequalified for jury service in this case.
- any questionnaire used or questions asked of the prospective jurors;
- who conducted the screening and criteria used;
- information regarding randomization before and after screening;
- any documents used in the screening process;
- any transcript from the prequalification process; and
- any information provided to jurors regarding the name or nature of the case.
Counsel for the plaintiff’s filed a motion in opposition. They indicate that the motion is untimely and that the defendant failed to demonstrate “a substantial failure to comply” with the Jury Selection and Service Act.
Midland County, TX Improves Juror Response Rates
News West 9 reported on November 16, 2016 that Midland County, TX has dramatically improved juror response rates with the use of new technology. Response rates used to be as low as 17% but are now up to 70%. The county purchased software from Judicial Systems Incorporated, which allows summoned people to complete juror questionnaires and request exemptions online. County Clerk Ross Bush said, "This new system helps alleviate that problem [the low response rate] because it gives you the freedom, choice and ability to make moves on your own." The system cost the county $90,000.
Supreme Court of Georgia Rules on Juror Questions Issue
The Supreme Court of Georgia issued an opinion in Hernandez v. The State on October 17, 2016. The defendant was convicted of murder and a firearm offense following a jury trial. At the beginning of the trial, the court told jurors that they would be permitted to submit questions for witnesses in writing to the court. Using this procedure, the trial court asked more than 70 questions from the jury; the jurors submitted no questions for some witnesses, while the court asked other witnesses more than ten jury questions. Counsel was given an opportunity to review and object to specific questions prior to the court asking them. Although the defendant objected to the content of a few specific questions, he did not object at trial to the procedure which was utilized. On appeal, he claimed that the trial court erred by soliciting the jury for questions to ask the witnesses and by asking the witnesses so many jury questions.
The Supreme Court of Georgia determined that prior caselaw permitted the procedure for juror questions which was used in this case. The Court stated:
Although trial courts must be cautious in soliciting and asking jury questions, particularly in large numbers, we cannot say that the trial court here deviated from the proper procedure or otherwise abused its discretion as to the jury questions that were asked.
A Jur-E bulletin reader who is also a judge in Georgia pointed out to the editor that although not many Georgia trial judges allow for juror questions, some judges were anxiously awaiting this opinion so that they could experiment with the procedure. He indicated his experience was that, “Jurors routinely express appreciation for the ability to ask questions during trial.”
Comments