In a notice to the bar and accompanying order, the Supreme Court has resumed jury trials in September beginning with selected vicinages. Concerns, and in some cases objections, have been raised by professional associations of attorneys, raising constitutional points and practical problems. The court has endeavored, in its prescribed procedures, to address many of the practical problems that might arise in the implementation of jury trials during the middle of an historic pandemic.

In addressing “the critical work” of the judiciary, a Supreme Court representative noted that this “temporary solution” is required now because “waiting is not an option.” Has there been a clamor from the public for trials by jury to continue through the height of the health threat caused by COVID-19? Have litigants, through their lawyers, made such an appeal to the court? The initial jury cases to be heard will address criminal trials involving a single detained defendant. One cannot argue with the need to prioritize jury trials in this instance. However, the thought expressed in the court’s order is to gradually resume jury trials in all counties and expand them to include civil as well as criminal cases. We believe that the civil cases present problems.

This content has been archived.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

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]