Masks, Sanitizer and Measuring Tape: What Jury Trials May Look Like Post-COVID
Constitutional mandates must be balanced with juror safety, which all court leaders identified as the top priority.
May 27, 2020 at 01:49 PM
8 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Legal Intelligencer
Editor's note: This is the second in a two-part series examining when jury trials might begin to take place in Pennsylvania, and what they may look like once they do.
Pennsylvania court leaders are juggling a multitude of questions as they try to restore jury trials, from how prospective jurors are brought into court buildings to figuring out where they can deliberate safely.
One thing can be stated with certainty, however: jury trials are going to look very different in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Courthouses have been largely closed since mid-March as part of a nationwide effort to help stem the spread of the highly contagious coronavirus. In recent weeks, however, courts have begun to expand their capabilities, and many court leaders in the state have begun the process of determining what it will take to get juries back into courtrooms.
Consensus, however, has grown around the idea that jury trials in southeastern Pennsylvania are at best several months away, and, for civil trials, likely not to occur until at least 2021.
Attorneys also widely agree that, once trials are underway, they are going to be very different.
"The jury trial we imagine in our heads is not going to return until there is a vaccine, until people have some sense of comfort," Sozi Tulante of Dechert said.
|'Antithetical to Social Distancing'?
Under normal circumstances, the stakes at trial are very high—defendants are fighting for their freedom and to vindicate their names, and plaintiffs are seeking remedies for loss and their day in court. However, the stakes are even higher when the health and safety of all involved—including attorneys, judges, court staff and jurors—are at risk.
But during pandemic conditions, even when they become manageable, jurors would face elevated health risks, since they are often grouped together and spend hours in close quarters deliberating over cases. Constitutional mandates must be balanced with juror safety, which all court leaders identified as the top priority.
"Jury duty is a responsibility and we owe the responsibility to the jurors to ensure they're going to be safe," Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas President Judge Idee Fox said.
The key questions the judges are now tackling are: how many jurors can be brought in, where will they sit and where can they deliberate.
The answers will be different for each jurisdiction and often hinge on the architecture of the courthouses. In some venues, activity is concentrated on the first floor, but, for example, many of Pennsylvania's federal courthouses are high-rise buildings, with many courtrooms on upper floors. In those buildings jurors need elevator access to get around. Philadelphia state courts are in similar high-rises. At the Stout Center for Criminal Justice the morning crush of people in the elevator bay is infamous in the city's legal community.
"The building itself is about as antithetical to social distancing as you can design," Greenblatt, Pierce, Funt & Flores attorney James Funt said.
And regardless of access, most jury rooms are cramped and could not fit the number of people needed for trial if social distancing guidelines are followed.
To cope, many systems, including Philadelphia, are considering ways to move the proceedings outside the courthouses, with nearby school gymnasiums or hotel ballrooms as possibilities. Some changes will likely be universal regardless of the courthouse. Increased use of hand sanitizer, masks for jurors, increased signage, taking temperatures, and marking up the courtrooms to help increase awareness of social distancing are all obvious changes likely to take in every courthouse.
"Even though we're not going to have trials until September, my tip staff is already out with measuring tape, figuring out where the six-foot distance would be for various people," Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas Judge Terrence R. Nealon said.
Jury summonses and questionnaires might also be modified so jurors can quickly be excused if they're at high risk or they are front-line essential workers. Court leaders are also considering using the public galleries or empty courtrooms for jury deliberations, or holding jury selection virtually.
Some jurisdictions are also exploring the possibility of reducing the number of jurors for civil trials from 12 to six, or reducing peremptory challenges.
According to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Schmehl, the Eastern District is also considering adding TV screens in the courtroom, putting wireless microphones on attorneys, and potentially giving jurors access to iPads to view evidence.
There are a lot of external factors courts must consider as well, such as the availability and safety of public transportation, or child care needs if the schools continue to be closed. Another hurdle will be asking people to take more time off work just as people, who may have been furloughed or laid off, may just be beginning to get back to work.
And, in order to make any of these potential changes effective, the courts will need to broadly communicate with the public about exactly what has been done to ensure they're safety.
"If people do not feel safe, they're not going to come in, and we're not going to get a sample of the Eastern District," Schmehl said.
|First Wave of Trials
Some venues, like Philadelphia, often have multiple trials happening at once, and as one is wrapping up, juries are being selected for others. That pace, however, will be all but impossible to maintain while social distancing requirements are in place. But, once juries are able to get back into the courtrooms, the first wave of cases are likely to be criminal trials, those who spoke with The Legal agreed, with courts prioritizing defendants who are currently incarcerated. That is a function of defendants' speedy trial right, and the fact that some have been incarcerated, awaiting trial months longer than they would have been if not for the pandemic.
"I understand it as a citizen of the world, but I'm incredibly torn and pained for the individuals who need access to the halls of justice," Funt said.
Trials are going to look much different, sources said. For instance, questions linger about whether defense attorneys will want to try cases if they and their clients will have to wear masks. And deciding not to wear a mask could also turn off jurors who are concerned about their health.
"It's a whole nuanced art form, jury trials. … Trials are very front and center, very in your face," Funt said. "If everybody's wearing a mask it's literally impossible to make those judgment calls they've made on a daily basis."
Some judges, observers said, might also look to streamline trial proceedings.
"They're not going to sit back and allow parties to go on and on. There could be limits on openings and closings," Tulante said. "I think you'll start to see trials happening more efficiently."
Schmehl said opinions differ, but his thinking is that the courts might want to start with the shortest trials first, sort of a series of bellwether trials to assess the difficult points. If a court kicks off a big, multi-defendant trial and that were to be tripped up in its final days, that could result in weeks of lost trial time, he said.
"Once everybody's used to how we're doing it, then you try the more complex trials," Schmehl said. "The best way to do it is to not just crash into it."
Similar to the need to notify jurors about the steps courts are taking, observers said courts also need to allow input from the various stakeholders, including the bar, to help ensure buy-in.
The first post-COVID case set to go to trial in Ohio was plagued with objections and appeals to that state's Supreme Court, with the defense bar contending that many of the changes the court put in place were unconstitutional. Buy-in from the bar could help prevent a similar situation.
"If it's ad hoc and done without that [buy-in], you would have a lot of motion practice, a lot of resistance that would get in the way of it actually being done," Tulante said. "Whatever the process, you have to let the public know, so they're not imagining you're going to be in a room with 200 other people, that your safety will be kept in mind."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllA Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
4 minute read'Appropriate Relief'?: Google Offers Remedy Concessions in DOJ Antitrust Fight
4 minute readLife, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Customers: Developments on ‘Conquesting’ from the Ninth Circuit
8 minute readLegal Departments Gripe About Outside Counsel but Rarely Talk to Them
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1The Key Moves in the Reshuffling German Legal Market as 2025 Dawns
- 2Social Media Celebrities Clash in $100M Lawsuit
- 3Federal Judge Sets 2026 Admiralty Bench Trial in Baltimore Bridge Collapse Litigation
- 4Trump Media Accuses Purchaser Rep of Extortion, Harassment After Merger
- 5Judge Slashes $2M in Punitive Damages in Sober-Living Harassment Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250