Mandatory Online Jury Trials: An Idea Whose Time Has Not Come
COVID-19 poses an unprecedented challenge to our system of law. We will be defined in the years to come by how we meet the challenge. The answer to the challenge is not to implement mandatory online jury trials.
August 30, 2020 at 07:02 PM
8 minute read
COVID-19 killed in-person depositions, in-person hearings, and in-person mediations, but we cannot allow COVID-19 to kill in-person jury trials. Mandatory online jury trials is an idea whose time has not come because it could be the final nail in the coffin of in-person jury trials.
The founders of our country created a sacrosanct Bill of Rights in the first 10 amendments of our Constitution. Three of those 10 amendments explicitly mention and protect jury trials. The Fifth Amendment provides for grand juries in criminal cases, the Sixth Amendment provides for jury trials in criminal cases, and the Seventh Amendment provides for jury trials in civil cases. In fact, the right to trial by jury is fundamental to all other rights in our Constitution. Thomas Jefferson recognized this when he wrote that the jury "is the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." The Texas Constitution likewise recognizes and protects the right to trial by jury by providing that the "right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate."
This content has been archived.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 AllSpecial Counsel Jack Smith Prepares Final Report as Trump Opposes Its Release
4 minute readPatent Disputes Over SharkNinja, Dyson Products Nearing Resolution
Revisiting the Boundaries Between Proper and Improper Argument: 10 Years Later
8 minute read'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Fulton DA Seeks to Overturn Her Disqualification From Trump Georgia Election Case
- 2The FTC’s Noncompete Rule Is Likely Dead
- 3COVID-19 Vaccine Suit Against United Airlines Hangs on Right-to-Sue Letter Date
- 4People in the News—Jan. 10, 2025—Lamb McErlane, Saxton & Stump
- 5How I Made Partner: 'Be Open With Partners About Your Strengths,' Says Ha Jin Lee of Sullivan & Cromwell
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