The Danger of Disappearing Jury Trials, During and After the Pandemic
Officials in the judicial branch are resolved it is highly likely there will be no jury trials until at least 2021.
May 14, 2020 at 12:10 PM
3 minute read
Much has been written about the consequences on public health, the economy and society of the COVID-19 pandemic, but few have observed the damaging effects the pandemic has caused to democracy by eliminating future jury trials.
With the current struggles to find a vaccine that provides complete immunization, officials in the judicial branch are resolved it is highly likely there will be no jury trials until at least 2021. At least one presiding judge is issuing notices in cases scheduled for jury trial in 2020 that state "there will be no jury trials in Hartford in 2020."
The late federal judge, Mark Kravitz, observed decades ago a trend he characterized as "the vanishing jury trial." With alternative dispute resolution on the rise, along with the rising cost of jury trials—particularly in Connecticut with individual voir dire as a method for selecting juries taking substantially longer time to select a jury than in others states—there has been a steady decline in the number of jury trials each year.
The founding fathers were unequivocal in their support for trial by jury. Alexander Hamilton wrote, "The friend and adversaries of the plan of the Convention, if they agree in nothing else, concur at least in the value they set upon trial by jury; if there is any difference between them it consists in this: the former regard it as a valuable safeguard to liberty; the latter represent it as the very palladium of free government." John Adams wrote, "Representative government and trial by jury are the heart and lungs of liberty." And Thomas Jefferson wrote, "I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
Former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist observed that the right to a jury trial is "fundamental to our history and jurisprudence" and a "right so fundamental and sacred to the citizens that it should be jealously guarded." As professor Alexandra Lehav explained in her recent book In Praise of Litigation, trial by jury is fundamental to democracy, for at least two reasons. First, it provides an equalizing effect by allowing some of the least powerful members of society to render judgment on some of the most powerful entities and individuals in the world. Second, jury trials allow individuals from different backgrounds and personalities to engage in principled debate over important issues such as public safety and personal responsibility.
The average person does not often think much about trial by jury, and some may regard it as an anachronism, a vestige of a bygone age. We need to remember the importance of a trial by jury to democracy so that, when this pandemic eventually passes, the trial by jury makes a vigorous return and does not, ultimately, vanish.
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 AllADVANCE Act Offers Conn. Opportunity to Enhance Carbon-Free Energy and Improve Reliability With Advanced Nuclear Technologies
Trending Stories
- 1$34M Verdict Shows How 1 Claim Could Ratchet Up Employment Suit
- 2OIG Progress Puts Connecticut in Leadership Position
- 3Bankruptcy Judge to Step Down in 2025
- 4Justices Seek Solicitor General's Views on Music Industry's Copyright Case Against ISP
- 5Judge to hear arguments on whether Google's advertising tech constitutes a monopoly
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