Far and Binding: How Texas Courts Are Gearing for Fully Remote Jury Trials
Courts in Austin and San Antonio will test fully virtual jury trials this month, becoming among the first to use Zoom for a jury trial because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
August 04, 2020 at 01:00 AM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Texas Lawyer
Austin lawyer Carl Guthrie has felt a range of emotions—hope, concern, worry—about being the first defense lawyer to try a criminal case from voir dire to verdict in a completely virtual format.
But overall, he is resolved because of one fact: It's his client who picked the virtual jury trial.
"Regardless of whether we as client representatives and defense attorneys, in particular, want it to happen. If the train is rolling, we have to get on board, or we get left behind," said Guthrie, co-founder of the nonprofit Texas Poverty Law Project.
Guthrie's client, who faces a Class C misdemeanor traffic ticket, is scheduled for a four-hour remote trial over Zoom on Aug. 11 in Travis County Justice of the Peace Pct. 5 Judge Nicholas Chu's courtroom in Austin. It will be closely followed Aug. 19 by a weeklong civil jury trial over Zoom in 57th Civil District Judge Antonia "Toni" Arteaga's courtroom in San Antonio.
"I'm excited about doing something new, and hopefully, being a good representative of the Texas judiciary," said Chu, who plans to stream his trial on YouTube.
Arteaga said she would love to have in-person jury trials but had to recognize where the community is at in terms of the coronavirus outbreak.
"I personally did not want to mandate that someone show up for jury duty when today mandating someone to appear in public place with 11 other people could have very dire repercussions. We don't want to do that. At the same time, our job is to keep the wheels of justice turning," Arteaga said.
|First in the world?
Local court leaders say that Chu and Arteaga's trials are going to be the first remote criminal and civil jury trials in Texas and the United States—possibly even the world. However, courts across the state have used Zoom for bench trials since April, and a Texas court in May tested Zoom for a nonbinding alternative dispute resolution proceeding called a summary jury trial. The two upcoming remote jury trials will be different—the verdict is binding.
"We expect that there will be a backlog of jury trials when courts begin holding jury trials again," said an email by David Slayton, administrative director of the Texas Office of Court Administration. "By testing out the ability to conduct jury trials virtually, we provide another option to dispose of cases that might be appropriate for this method. We hope to learn from the virtual jury trials and issue guidance to other courts on how to successfully conduct a virtual trial."
Slayton noted that the court administrative office received a grant and spent just under $10,000 to purchase iPads with cell service, preloaded with Zoom, for any jurors who say they don't have what they need.
"The equipment will be delivered to the jurors' homes for use, or to a common location for use," Slayton said, adding that the iPads will be returned, cleaned, and loaned out to new jurors for future virtual jury trials.
Chu said his staff has asked potential jurors about their devices and Internet connection, so the court can provide technology if needed.
He said he anticipates some things will be the same as an in-person trial, like the juror check-in process and reading jurors the rules of the trial.
"I think what will be different is there's just a lot of narration that will have to be involved with the trial," Chu said. "Like if I say, 'Go that way,' you will know where I'm pointing if you are in person. But if I have to send them to a Zoom breakout room, I have to tell them ahead of time."
Chu added that his biggest challenge as the judge will be making sure that the jurors in front of their computers do not step away or check their email.
"All the things we think are totally normal in virtual meeting spaces, are habit, we cannot do in a virtual jury trial setting," he noted.
Arteaga, the San Antonio district judge, said she expects Zoom to change the typical group dynamics that play out during an in-person trial.
"There's nothing like experiencing a week together in the same courtroom. The attorneys, the judge, even my staff, and those 12 jurors—they get to know each other," she said. "They are not going to have that, to the same extent."
But she added that she still feels that skilled trial lawyers will be able to blossom using the remote format.
"Skilled trial attorneys are skilled trial attorneys," she said. "It doesn't matter, in my opinion, if it's in a courtroom, live in person, or virtually on a screen."
|Planning ahead
Like in Chu's court, Arteaga is making sure potential jurors have access to devices and Internet connections. She and a committee of four other district judges have put their heads together to figure out how to translate all of the things that happen in an in-person jury trial into a remote format, for example, how to do juror strikes or get exhibits to the jury.
"There will be a lot more planning ahead," said Arteaga.
She doesn't yet know which case she will choose for trial. Arteaga said five civil cases are ready to go, and the attorneys have all been notified. The cases were picked as possibilities because the trials will take no more than a week, and the parties have agreed to use a six-person jury.
Guthrie, the lawyer for the Class C misdemeanor defendant, said that he's heard defense lawyers discuss concerns with the remote trial format. They question if they can effectively do their jobs as trial advocates using the new medium. Lawyers also have concerns about their clients' constitutional rights, and whether the technology will run smoothly.
"The only way we fix things is to try. I think the legal system is lagging behind the world in technology," Guthrie said. "Hopefully, we can provide access to a lot more people than are getting it now. Or perhaps it backfires horrifically. But we never know until we try."
Related stories:
Now Trending in Texas: Full-Blown Bench Trials Via Zoom
Juror Walks Off to Take Phone Call as Texas Tests First Jury Trial Via Zoom
The Jury and the Screen: Judges, Lawyers Reflect on Texas' Experimental Zoom Jury Trial
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 AllTrending Stories
- 1The American Lawyer's Top Stories of 2024
- 2Semiconductor Component Maker Accused of Deceiving Investors About Market Downturn, Export Curbs
- 3Zuckerman Spaeder Gets Ready to Move Offices in DC, Deploy AI Tools in 2025
- 4Pardoning Jan. 6 Defendants May Send Bad Message About Insurrection, Rule of Law
- 5Looming Clash Over Abortion Pills Shows Overturning 'Roe v. Wade' Settled Nothing
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