Chief Judge Barbara Lynn of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Dallas. Courtesy photo.

After the first in-person jury trial in the post-coronavirus era, the jury expressed gratitude and gave a round of applause for the infection-control precautions that the judge put into place for the trial.

Chief Judge Barbara Lynn of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Dallas became the first judge in Texas, and perhaps the nation, to hold a jury trial since March, when courthouse doors around the country closed to in-person proceedings. The criminal trial took place June 1-3.

We spoke to Lynn about what went well, things she'll change next time and what other courts might take away from her jury trial experiment.

Here are her answers, edited for brevity and clarity.

---

Read more: Jury Trials Are Back in Texas. Here's What You Should Know

---

Why did you decide to hold last week's jury trial?

It was obvious that the courts would be starting up again with jury trials within either June, July, or August. My conclusion was that we should have at least one trial that we could use to see whether we could safely conduct a trial, and if so, how.

I decided that I would try to have a trial, recognizing the need for the justice system to continue but also the need to conduct a trial safely for the participants, including the jury and the lawyers and court personnel.

Can you tell me what went well?

I think the best thing about it is we were able to have it at all. There was a remarkable response of the panel. We had more than enough people come to court and be willing to serve.

I have to say that in general, once the trial started, I thought it was pretty much like a regular trial. Obviously, the participants were wearing masks or face shields. We had the witnesses take off their face coverings once they got in what we created: a place in the jury box that we walled up with Plexiglas on two sides. Other than that, everybody in the courtroom was wearing a mask or face covering. That was different.

Because of where the jury was sitting, the lawyers had their backs to me. I put a camera on the back door on a tripod so I could monitor on the bench the viewpoint from the jury.

We didn't have any bench conferences, so during the trial, I had to communicate with the lawyers at least once on an objection—where they would have approached the bench—by email.

What would you change next time?

A public health specialist agreed to come in and look at what we are doing and see if they have any additional suggestions for safety, or whether some things we were doing for safety are considerably adding safety. The Plexiglas screens—there are some breaks in them, some small places where they don't connect tightly, because they are on wheels. I'm trying to figure out a way to close those gaps.

Some lawyers have told me they would rather not be wearing a mask when they are talking to the jury. That may be okay. I did put Plexiglas in a v-shape around the lecture where they were standing and talking to the jury.

You were using clear plastic face shields, which still allow people to see each other's faces?

Before I did the trial, I had a round table with defense lawyers and a separate one with prosecutors. One of the comments was lawyers wouldn't want to pick a jury without seeing the faces of the jury. That was a solution to that.

The jury elected to wear those. Most of them wore the face shields.

What would you say to criminal-defense lawyers who may have concerns about a fair trial in these circumstances?

I am very mindful of the need to provide due process to criminal defendants. There are very few things as important as that. I was trying to see if we could do that while providing health and safety for the participants. I hope we succeeded in that. There's always room for improvement, and I'm going to be mindful of anything and everything I can do to improve. I asked the lawyers in the trial to give me feedback, about what they thought could be done better, to facilitate a better presentation or additional safety measures.

I don't see a time in the future we're going to bring 40 people into the courtroom at the same time. We have to work together constructing a system that serves the interests of justice, and due process concerns of criminal defendants.

What do you think that other courts take away from your experiment?

I think courts are going to have to consider the extraordinary exhaustion of resources to have a trial under these conditions. I used three courtrooms. We spent significant money purchasing supplies, and it will become more and more challenging when we have a trial, with multiple defendants, multiple counts, and greater length.

I think you will see some stick their toes in the water, but it's not going to be back to business as it used to be.

At the conclusion of the trial, the foreman raised his hand, and I called on him. He stood up and wanted me to know that the jurors wanted to tell me how grateful they were for all the safety measures put in place. They wanted me to know they felt comfortable doing their work. Then they gave me a round of applause. It was a great relief that they felt that way.