Law360 (July 23, 2020, 4:54 PM EDT) --
|Judge Jack Tuter|
Like all summons in Florida, the prospective jurors received their notices for jury duty in the mail and were selected randomly by a computer using the Florida driver's license data base. The summons instructed the panel of jurors to report for jury duty over the internet — a first in Florida. The juror summons was modified with specific directions not to come to the courthouse. Luckily for us, only one juror appeared in the juror parking lot.
Forty-nine other jurors promptly reported at 8:30 a.m. by connecting to a Zoom platform. Another six jurors had been previously excused. In total, 55 of 120 jurors answered the call to duty.
Except for specific instructions as to how to report for jury duty, the juror summons was not altered. The summons instructed jurors to report at 8:30 a.m. on July 10. The summons specifically instructed jurors to go to a website and view a video, which gave instructions on how to check in for jury duty and instructions to go to the Zoom website and download the Zoom app. Jurors were also instructed to go to the Florida 17th Circuit website, find the name of the chief judge, and obtain the login information for the judges' Zoom platform.
None of the 49 jurors who checked in for jury duty could have done so unless they followed all of these instructions. The success rate was a true testament of faith in the jury system.
Presiding Judge Patti Henning was joined for the 8:30 a.m. check-in by two members of the Broward County clerk of courts' jury staff and a member of the court's Judicial Information System staff.
It had been predetermined that only 20 to 25 jurors would be needed for voir dire to keep the process as concise as possible. It was abundantly clear at the outset that preselection of a panel would be more tedious than expected.
First, everyone had to check in remotely and had to be asked about their right to compensation for serving as jurors. Next, the presiding judge had to go through juror exemptions, juror hardships and juror equipment to be used during jury selection. The check-in process lasted an hour and 15 minutes.
Some jurors expressed difficulty with operating video equipment primarily with the use of cellphones. Some stated they could only view four video panels on Zoom and felt uncomfortable participating; others claimed weak Wi-Fi signals; some made excuses just to bail out, such as being at a car repair shop when they checked in.
Despite the aforementioned, everyone who observed this experiment thought the prospective jurors wanted to participate and were fully engaged throughout the process. Once a panel was prescreened down to 23, the jurors were brought into the virtual courtroom where abbreviated jury instructions were read and voir dire began.
Because Zoom does not permit "tiles" to be moved, jurors were numbered 1 through 23 for ease of locating the jurors on the screen. A group of attorneys from the American Board of Trial Advocates conducted the voir dire and used a negligence case from which to ask questions.
It had been preplanned by the attorneys and the court to ask questions that primarily focused on the use of a videoconference platform while serving on a jury duty. Jurors were asked to mute their microphones and raise their hands to be recognized. Overall, the jurors responded to questions posed by the attorneys as they would in any courtroom environment.
Each side was given 20 to 25 minutes to conduct voir dire. At the conclusion of questioning, the jury was placed in a virtual breakout room and the court and the attorneys selected the jury. The jury was brought out of the breakout room and an announcement was made as to who had been chosen.
After the jury was chosen, the spectators — judges, attorneys and a member of the news media — engaged in a question-and-answer session with all 23 jurors.
The jurors were asked the following questions:
- Do you feel you could participate in a jury trial and render a fair verdict if the trial was conducted completely on video?
- Would you rather attend jury duty this way as opposed to in the courthouse practicing social distancing and wearing a mask?
- Do you feel you may be distracted sitting as a juror in this format?
- Do you feel using this format you were not able to feel fully engaged in the jury selection?
- Do you feel you were limited in engaging in the process due to technology limitations, i.e., Wi-Fi or equipment?
- Do you feel you may not be able to judge credibility of a witness over Zoom?
- In a personal injury case where the plaintiff may have suffered catastrophic injuries, do you feel you may not be able to award large sums of money as you may only see the injured person or their family for a limited time?
Based on answers from the prospective panel of jurors and feedback solicited at the conclusion of the event, the following lessons were learned:
- All of the jurors felt they could comfortably participate in a remote jury trial and expressed few limitations.
- Some jurors felt a Zoom jury trial had its limitations in scope, i.e. some felt this would not be a good format for a serious criminal trial.
- Some jurors felt slightly limited using a phone for jury service, but after the event was over, those concerns diminished.
- All felt they could judge credibility over a Zoom trial.
- Given the choice to serve on jury duty via Zoom or live, most felt they would choose Zoom. However, all felt if compelled, they would go to the courthouse and serve on a jury.
- The juror summons instructions were clear but most did not see the instruction to fill out a juror questionnaire.
- The instructional video gave clear instructions as to what they needed to do to participate in jury duty.
- Everyone participating in jury selection felt they could serve on a jury via Zoom and render a fair verdict
There is no doubt in my mind jury trials can be conducted via a video platform. Had a judge brought up this possibility of viable jury trials to the legal community in March, it is unlikely anyone would have thought it possible.
Today, with continued COVID-19 outbreaks, remote jury trials may be the only way to safely move cases on civil dockets. Video trials do have limitations, especially in the criminal justice arena, but certain civil cases and other non-due process cases can be tried by a jury using a video platform. The unanswered question remains whether participants will feel comfortable enough to stipulate to seating a jury and resolving their case remotely.
The legal profession is prone to centuries-old processes. As attorneys and litigants seamlessly transition into a virtual environment, trials conducted via a video platform offer an effective and viable alternative to face-to-face encounters in a courthouse.
Jack Tuter is chief judge of Florida's 17th Judicial Circuit.
The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Portfolio Media Inc. or any of its respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
 A similar experiment is in process pursuant to an order by a work group appointed by Chief Justice Charles Canaday of the Florida Supreme Court.
 The 17th Judicial Circuit conducted a series of mock jury trials and voir dire sessions. These are not part of the chief justice's work-group directives.
Remote summoned jurors, ABOTA members conducting voir dire (July 10, 2020): https://youtu.be/GRkFlShuZ9k.
Circuit Civil mock voir dire, ABOTA members as jurors (June 5, 2020): https://youtu.be/HQwfFIHfAF4.
Circuit Civil mock jury trial over Zoom with ABOTA members (May 11, 2020): https://youtu.be/onlDrUS6wHg.
County Criminal mock jury trial over Zoom (DUI) (May 6, 2020): https://youtu.be/F9eyX2h4nZM.
17th Circuit Civil mock civil trial over Zoom (April 14, 2020): https://youtu.be/93Wvd3XUNUA.
For a reprint of this article, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.