South Carolina Bar Leaders Press for More Lawyer Involvement in Voir Dire Questioning in Civil Cases
The South Carolina Lawyers Weekly reports that a committee of attorneys and court officials has been working for two years to convince bench and bar leaders to join 45 other states in using attorney-conducted voir dire in civil cases. Charleston trial lawyer Mark Joye says he’s mostly seen judges asking a few questions and jurors filling out a "very limited" return form shared with attorneys before selection, which contains basic biographical information such as name, address, education, profession, marriage status, and criminal history. Joye said, "That's the extent of the information lawyers in South Carolina get…. It's just not enough. The difference in information is staggering."
Maryland Appellate Court Emphasizes the Importance of Public Presence During Voir Dire and Jury Oathtaking
In the case of Clyde Campbell v. State of Maryland, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland reversed a murder conviction and ordered a new trial because the trial judge excluded the defendant’s family members from the courtroom gallery during several segments of voir dire (including when prospective jurors took an oath to truthfully answer voir dire questions and during the peremptory challenge stage of jury selection). The panel undertook an extensive analysis of U.S. Supreme Court, state, and English jurisprudence requiring jury selection to be “public.” It concluded that the partial closure of voir dire to defendant’s family was not de minimis and violated defendant’s right to a public trial. The court said public observation “(1) instills public confidence in the integrity and fairness of the criminal justice system, (2) ensures the proper use of peremptory challenges by the prosecutor under Batson, (3) safeguards a person accused of a crime against the arbitrary exercise of power by a prosecutor or judge, (4) allows the jurors to see that there are interested persons present, (5) permits members of a defendant's family to contribute their knowledge and insight on which jurors to select, and (6) impresses on each juror the importance of the solemn duty that he or she is assuming.”
Trial Judge’s Ex Parte Communication with Jurors Causes Conviction Reversal
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit inUnited States v. Mehta vacated a guilty verdict in a case presided over by federal trial judge Thomas McAvoy. After a recess on the third day of trial, five jurors asked to meet with the judge to express their concerns about being stared at by the co-defendants outside the courtroom. McAvoy made a record of the meeting but did not round up the trial attorneys. Among other things, the judge told the jurors, “That’s disturbing. I think what I would do, if you don’t mind, would be assign a court security officer to accompany you to your cars. Would that help?” Thereafter, the judge reported the ex parte meeting to the lawyers. The defense request for a mistrial was denied and the trial proceeded. The Second Circuit panel overturned the convictions because “the ex parte meeting with the jurors and his instruction about assessing the credibility of a testifying defendant were sufficiently sharp departures from the law of this Circuit as to undermine our confidence in the fairness of the trial.”
Lockport, New York Jury Foreman Praises Jury Service
Revisiting Our Previous Report of a Juror Interview in Pittsburgh Police Office Acquittal
The lead story in last week’s issue of Jur-E Bulletin (3/29/19) featured a video-taped interview of an excused juror in the high-profile homicide prosecution of Pittsburgh police officer Michael Rosfield. One of our readers sent us an additional news story about how the juror came to be excused on the last day of the trial. The Pittsburg Post-Gazette piece portrays the sensitive handling of the juror excusal by Judge Alexander P. Bicket.
Notice of new or upcoming articles, projects, symposia, and other jury-related events is appreciated. We strive to have to keep the "Upcoming Events" section relevant and up to date. When alerting us to articles published elsewhere on the Web, please include the URL. We cannot reprint articles from other sources without permission, and generally only provide a link.
Disclaimer: Opinions contained herein, as well as material appearing in external sites to which this publication provides links, do not necessarily reflect those of the National Center for State Courts. Presence of any such material should not be construed as support by the National Center for State Courts or any of its associations, affiliates, or employees.
Broken Links: Although the Editor makes an effort to ensure that links included in the newsletter are active at the time it is sent, there will be instances when readers find that links are broken or un-viewable for other reasons. Unfortunately, this will happen occasionally.
NCSC maintains exclusive use of its subscriber lists. Information contained therein will only be used by NCSC and is never distributed to other organizations. All communications from NCSC contain an opt-out provision for your convenience.
