Chief Judge Barbara Lynn Reflects On Pros, Cons of First Jury Trial Amid COVID-19
"I think courts are going to have to consider the extraordinary exhaustion of resources to have a trial under these conditions. I used three courtrooms. We spent significant money purchasing supplies," said Chief Judge Barbara Lynn of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Dallas.
June 09, 2020 at 02:13 PM
6 minute read
After the first in-person jury trial in the post-coronavirus era, the jury expressed gratitude and gave a round of applause for the infection-control precautions that the judge put into place for the trial.
Chief Judge Barbara Lynn of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Dallas became the first judge in Texas, and perhaps the nation, to hold a jury trial since March, when courthouse doors around the country closed to in-person proceedings. The criminal trial took place June 1-3.
We spoke to Lynn about what went well, things she'll change next time and what other courts might take away from her jury trial experiment.
Here are her answers, edited for brevity and clarity.
Read more: Jury Trials Are Back in Texas. Here's What You Should Know
Why did you decide to hold last week's jury trial?
It was obvious that the courts would be starting up again with jury trials within either June, July, or August. My conclusion was that we should have at least one trial that we could use to see whether we could safely conduct a trial, and if so, how.
I decided that I would try to have a trial, recognizing the need for the justice system to continue but also the need to conduct a trial safely for the participants, including the jury and the lawyers and court personnel.
Can you tell me what went well?
I think the best thing about it is we were able to have it at all. There was a remarkable response of the panel. We had more than enough people come to court and be willing to serve.
I have to say that in general, once the trial started, I thought it was pretty much like a regular trial. Obviously, the participants were wearing masks or face shields. We had the witnesses take off their face coverings once they got in what we created: a place in the jury box that we walled up with Plexiglas on two sides. Other than that, everybody in the courtroom was wearing a mask or face covering. That was different.
Because of where the jury was sitting, the lawyers had their backs to me. I put a camera on the back door on a tripod so I could monitor on the bench the viewpoint from the jury.
We didn't have any bench conferences, so during the trial, I had to communicate with the lawyers at least once on an objection—where they would have approached the bench—by email.
What would you change next time?
I was going to try to get a public health specialist to agree to come in and look at what we are doing and see if they have any additional suggestions for safety, or whether some things we were doing for safety are considerably adding safety. The Plexiglas screens—there are some breaks in them, some small places where they don't connect tightly, because they are on wheels. I'm trying to figure out a way to close those gaps.
Some lawyers have told me they would rather not be wearing a mask when they are talking to the jury. That may be okay. I did put Plexiglas in a v-shape around the lectern where they were standing and talking to the jury.
You were using clear plastic face shields, which still allow people to see each other's faces?
Before I did the trial, I had a round table with defense lawyers and a separate one with prosecutors. One of the comments was lawyers wouldn't want to pick a jury without seeing the faces of the jury. That was a solution to that.
The jury elected to wear those. Most of them wore the face shields.
What would you say to criminal-defense lawyers who may have concerns about a fair trial in these circumstances?
I am very mindful of the need to provide due process to criminal defendants. There are very few things as important as that. I was trying to see if we could do that while providing health and safety for the participants. I hope we succeeded in that. There's always room for improvement, and I'm going to be mindful of anything and everything I can do to improve. I asked the lawyers in the trial to give me feedback, about what they thought could be done better, to facilitate a better presentation or additional safety measures.
I don't see a time in the future we're going to bring 40 people into the courtroom at the same time. We have to work together constructing a system that serves the interests of justice, and due process concerns of criminal defendants.
What do you think that other courts take away from your experiment?
I think courts are going to have to consider the extraordinary exhaustion of resources to have a trial under these conditions. I used three courtrooms. We spent significant money purchasing supplies, and it will become more and more challenging when we have a trial, with multiple defendants, multiple counts, and greater length.
I think you will see some stick their toes in the water, but it's not going to be back to business as it used to be.
At the conclusion of the trial, the foreman raised his hand, and I called on him. He stood up and wanted me to know that the jurors wanted to tell me how grateful they were for all the safety measures put in place. They wanted me to know they felt comfortable doing their work. Then they gave me a round of applause. It was a great relief that they felt that way.
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 All'Rapidly Closing Window': Progressive Groups Urge Senate Votes on Biden's Judicial Nominees
5 minute readBig Law Practice Leaders 'Bullish' That Second Trump Presidency Will Be Good for Business
3 minute readTrump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
Big Law Lawyers Fan Out for Election Day Volunteering in Call Centers and Litigation
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Republican Who Might Become FTC's Next Chair Blasts Democratic Commissioners' 'All Mergers Are Bad' Mindset
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: It's Bonus Time
- 3Maryland Atty Pushes Judge to Grant Discovery in Reverse Discrimination Suit Against King & Spalding
- 4Thompson Coburn Hit With Class Action Over Data Breach
- 5The Coming of Trump's Judicial Picks Spurs Liberals to Press for Biden's
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