Most Houston Lawyers Don't Want Jury Trials Back Before Fall, Survey Says
The research is noteworthy because it asked for lawyers' thoughts about a long list of health and safety precautions that are now becoming commonplace across the Lone Star State.
June 01, 2020 at 03:34 AM
4 minute read
Most trial lawyers in Houston do not want jury trials to return before the fall, and they widely oppose the idea of remote jury trials, instead supporting in-person trials that use infection-control measures, according to a new survey of more than 3,000 attorneys that was conducted by the Harris County judiciary.
While preparing to reopen courthouses and pondering precautions for the future return of jury trials, the judiciary of Harris County polled local attorneys from May 19 to May 22 and received 3,183 responses to the survey. The research is noteworthy because it asked for lawyers' thoughts about a long list of health and safety precautions that are now becoming commonplace across the Lone Star State and about experimental jury trial methods that may get tested this summer.
When asked if jury trials should return this summer, fall or another time, 57% of the 3,183 attorneys picked the fall.
Among them, 85% of lawyers cited concerns about the health and safety of participants, 74% worried about how to judge a face-masked witness's credibility and 69% had concerns about picking a jury when jurors' faces were covered.
Lawyers also widely oppose the idea of remote jury trials—74% of respondents said they wouldn't do it.
Although courthouses across Texas are reopening June 1 to limited numbers of in-person proceedings, jury trials are not included. The Texas Supreme Court has ordered a pause on jury trials through Aug. 1, except for a limited number of jury trials that experiment with new procedures to keep participants safe from COVID-19 infection.
The survey also polled attorneys on some of the ideas that are swirling about experimental jury trials.
Full survey results:
For example, when asked to choose from a list of precautions that courts should take before they seat a jury, the most commonly chosen precautions were: conducting voir dire in large venues, picked by 69% of respondents; using smaller voir dire panels to enable social distancing, picked by 45% of respondents; and using plexiglass shields around jurors in the jury box, chosen by 44% of the lawyers.
Even though the survey makes clear that Zoom court proceedings have become ubiquitous—77% of the attorneys have done them—there was resounding opposition to the idea of doing voir dire over Zoom or other video conferencing technology: 64% of the lawyers said Zoom would make them less likely to participate in a jury trial.
Yet only about one in four of the respondents had considered waiving the right to a jury trial in any case because of the pandemic. Only 5% of the respondents said they had already waived a jury trial due to the health crisis.
Infection control
One line of questioning asked lawyers about infection control precautions that will become commonplace at courthouses across Texas as they reopen in June.
The attorneys showed overwhelming support for mandatory face coverings: 45% said the measure must be in place before they appear in court voluntarily. Another 32% said face covering rules would make them more likely to appear voluntarily.
Screening measures at entrances were also important.
For example, 34% of the respondents said they wouldn't go to court voluntarily unless temperatures were taken at the entry, while another 36% said temperature-taking would make them more likely to appear voluntarily. Regarding symptom screening questions at courthouse entrances, 32% said it must be in place before they appear in court, and 34% said it would make them more likely to appear.
Within courtrooms themselves, the attorneys wanted hand sanitizer at counsel tables, with 83% of respondents saying that precaution would make them comfortable.
Related stories:
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
© 2025 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 AllHouston Trial Lawyer Mary-Olga Lovett Leaves King & Spalding to Open Boutique
3 minute readDeal Watch: Private Equity Dealmakers Make 2025 Predictions Amid Deal Resurgence
12 minute readTrending Stories
- 1SEC Files Lawsuit Against Elon Musk Over Untimely Twitter Ownership Disclosure
- 2Survey Finds Majority of Legal Professionals Still Intimidated by AI Despite Need to Streamline Mounting Caseloads
- 3FTC Launches Inquiry of Single-Family Rental Home 'Mega Investors,' Issues PBM Report
- 4Womble Bond Dickinson's Wilmington Office Sees New Leadership as Merger Is Completed
- 5Defending Against a $290M Claim and Scoring a $116M Win in Del. Drug Patent Fight
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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