Texas Jury Trials to Resume This Summer Under Experimental Program
Jury trials won't resume in Texas on a wide scale until Aug. 1, but in the meantime, the Texas judiciary will authorize some trial judges to hold experiments with conducting jury trials--either in-person or remotely--as long as they have a plan to keep everyone safe from COVID-19 infection.
May 27, 2020 at 03:51 PM
7 minute read
This summer, select Texas trial courts will conduct experiments to determine best practices to start holding jury trials again while keeping all court participants safe from infection by COVID-19.
The experiments will cover ways to conduct jury trials both remotely and in-person — or perhaps a hybrid of both — following guidelines for social distancing and other infection control measures.
Experimental jury trials were authorized in a Texas Supreme Court emergency order released Wednesday. Even though the high court previously allowed courts to reopen to some in-person proceedings by June 1, in this new 17th emergency order, the justices made it clear that most jury trials are prohibited until Aug. 1. The exceptions are the jury trials that are part of the summer experiments.
Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Nathan Hecht said that instead of opening the whole state to jury trials, Texas decided to conduct these experiments in a controlled fashion to avoid a scenario that played out in Ohio in late April.
A judge called a criminal case for a jury trial, only to cancel the proceeding because the defendant experienced difficulty breathing and went to the hospital. He and his criminal-defense lawyer were quarantined.
|Read more: Ohio's First Post-COVID Jury Trial Was Set to Begin. Then the Defendant Nearly Collapsed
"It was a fiasco. Not only was it a waste of time, it was possibly infringing on the criminal-defendant's rights, and in any event, was threatening the participants' safety," Hecht said. "The preeminent issue is always the safety of the participants–and principally, the jurors, who are not volunteers. They are forced to be there."
|Jury Trial Experiments
The Texas Supreme Court's 17th emergency order explained that the Texas Office of Court Administration is going to be coordinating with the state's regional presiding judges and county local administrative judges. Together they will allow a limited number of jury trials to proceed.
This content has been archived.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 AllEven With New Business Courts, Texas Is a Long Way from Taking Delaware's Corporate Law Mantle
5 minute read'Courts Do Get It Wrong': Legal Experts Discuss State-Law Certification Pros and Cons
9 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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