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
© 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 AllFrom ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute readDLA Piper Sued by 2 Houston Companies, Alleging a 'Fake Lawyer' Represented Them in Argentina
3 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