Presentation on theme: "505 North 20 th Street, Suite 1800 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 (205)795-6658 csattorneys.com Something else to keep us awake at night... ETHICS IN JURY SELECTION."— Presentation transcript:
505 North 20 th Street, Suite 1800 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 (205)795-6658 csattorneys.com Something else to keep us awake at night... ETHICS IN JURY SELECTION
Ethics in Jury Selection What information is available? How can we find it? How far can we go to find it? Is jurors’ social media a public record? When does investigation constitute improper contact with a prospective juror? What if inadvertent contact is made? What is our duty to investigate jurors? What are the ramifications if we don’t?
Ethics in Jury Selection Voir Google: Use of Social Media in Jury Selection Ethical Obligations in Juror Background Research Ethical Obligations to Disclose Juror Relationships Ethical Obligations of Competence Jurors and HIPAA Ethical Obligations in Post-trial Juror Interviews
VOIR GOOGLE Use of Social Media in Jury Selection
How Widespread is Social Media? Facebook = 500 million users Twitter = 600 million users Instagram = 150 million users YouTube = 1 billion users each month 67% of Americans with Internet Access use Social Media.
Social Media Use is Consistent Across: Racial & Ethnic Boundaries Educational & Socio-Economic Boundaries Urbanity What does this mean for attorneys? 2 out of every 3 prospective jurors use social media.
Benefits of Using Social Media in Jury Selection Outlet in Which Jurors Voluntarily Engage Candid Information –Employment History –Religious and Political Affiliations –Sexual Orientation –Age –Educational Background –Circle of Friends and Acquaintances
Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.5 Impartiality & Decorum of the Tribunal “A lawyer shall not … (b) communicate ex parte with [a juror] during the proceeding unless authorized to do so by law or court order.”
Responsible Social Media Analysis 1.Run names through public records database. 2.Use common search engines and social media sites. 3.Include common name variants. 4.Remember the importance of oral questioning and/or jury questionnaires. 5.Don’t believe everything you read.
Crossing the Line 1.Don’t violate privacy settings. 2.Don’t “friend” potential jurors. 3.Don’t make an enemy of the judge. 4.Avoid the “LinkedIn Problem.”
Methods: Using Social Media in Jury Selection Process Research in Advance Turn to Jury Selection Consultants Perform Real-time Research
Is there an ethical duty for an attorney to investigate jurors’ responses on voir dire?
Duty to Investigate? In Missouri, at least, the answer is yes. –Missouri Supreme Court Rule 69.025 requires the attorney to research a jurors’ litigation history. –Missouri has a free and easily accessible system for searching for past litigation. –Arose out of a case where juror’s nondisclosure would have been easily found on case record system before verdict. No other state has a similar rule, but …
Duty to Investigate? [T]he evidence which was presented to the Court during the hearing on Defendants' post-judgment motions was all a matter of public record. Were Defendants genuinely concerned before the trial or before the verdict was returned about the prospective jurors' participation in prior bankruptcies and the like, they could have and should have looked at the available public records prior to or during the trial and afforded the Court an opportunity to take measures to address any concerns rather than waiting for a verdict to be returned, the jury discharged, and a judgment entered on the verdict. Boudreaux v. Pettaway, 108 So. 3d 486, 491 (Ala. 2012) (quoting trial court’s order and affirming holding)
Duty to Investigate? At least one Kentucky case has at least implied that a party did not have a duty to search Facebook after a juror responded “no” to the Judge’s direct question as whether anyone was “on Facebook.” The juror lied, and was “friends” with the victim’s mother on Facebook. Sluss v. Kentucky, 381 S.W.3d. 215 (Ky. 2012).
Is There a Duty to Disclose Known, or Suspected, Information? What if an attorney becomes aware of certain facts during trial that indicate a juror has failed to disclose material information during voir dire?
Why is this Important? In Criminal Trials – The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to an impartial jury. In Civil and Criminal Trials – Great expense can be lost if the defendant waits until after the verdict to raise the issue.
Why is this Important? MRPC 3.3 and Ala. R. Prof. Cond. 3.3 – Candor Toward the Tribunal –Both state that “[a] lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal.” –The comment also states: “There are circumstances where failure to make a disclosure is the equivalent of an affirmative misrepresentation.”
Case Example: During the course of a criminal trial, defense counsel finds information that, upon reasonable investigation, would reveal that a juror has misrepresented in voir dire the following: –Her status as a suspended lawyer; –Her address; –Her and her husband’s criminal history; –Her past litigation history.
Case Example: Does defense counsel have to: (1)Investigate the possibility of nondisclosure? (2)Disclose to the court and the prosecution the juror’s suspected misrepresentation?
Case Example: Held: –Absolutely. There was sufficient information to determine the existence of falsehoods. –A report was generated during the trial that should have spurred at least further investigation and certainly disclosure of suspicion.
Case Example: Result: –Defendant’s request for new trial denied. –The constitutional right to an impartial jury was waived by the counsel’s conduct. –The other three defendants who did no research did get new trials. –United States v. Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d 445 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)
Case Example: The Daugerdas case was particularly egregious because of the expense: –3 months of trial –9,200 pages of testimony –41 government witnesses –22 million documents during discovery –1,300 exhibits –9 days of jury deliberations –$110,569.85 in jury attendance and travel fees
The Basis for Permitting Waiver: “Any other rule would allow defendants to sandbag the court by remaining silent and gambling on a favorable verdict, knowing that if the jury went against them, they could always obtain a new trial by later raising the issue of juror misconduct.” –United States v. Costa, 890 F.2d 480 (1 st Cir. 1989)
There is one problem that cannot be solved by any amount of questioning, research, consultants or disclosure.
Is there an affirmative obligation to report known or suspected juror misconduct?
Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct Alabama Rule of Professional Conduct 3.5 Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal A lawyer shall not: a)seek to influence a judge, juror, prospective juror or other official by means prohibited by law; a)communicate ex parte with such a person except as permitted by law; or b)engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal. Alabama Rule of Professional Conduct 8.3 Reporting Professional Misconduct a)A lawyer possessing unprivileged knowledge of a violation of Rule 8.4 [Misconduct] shall report such knowledge to a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon such violation. b)A lawyer possessing unprivileged knowledge or evidence concerning another lawyer or a judge shall reveal fully such knowledge or evidence upon proper request.
Ethical Obligation –Currently, there is no Alabama Rule of Professional Conduct that directly addresses a lawyer’s affirmative duty to report jury misconduct. –The Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct state that “Virtually all difficult ethical problems arise from conflict between a lawyer’s responsibilities to clients, to the legal system and to the lawyer’s own interest in remaining an upright person while earning a satisfactory living... Within the framework of these Rules many difficult issues of professional discretion can arise.”
Ethical Obligation – New York Bar Association New York Rule of Professional Conduct 3.5(d) states that “a lawyer shall reveal promptly to the court improper conduct by a member of the venire or a juror, or by another toward a member of the venire or a juror or a member of her family of which the lawyer has knowledge.” Formal Opinion No. 2012-2 entitled “Jury Research and Social Media” states, in relevant part, “Should a lawyer learn of juror misconduct through otherwise permissible research of a juror’s social media activities, the lawyer must reveal the improper conduct to the court.” The opinion goes on to say that the “attorneys must use their best judgment and good faith in determining whether a juror has acted improperly; the attorney cannot consider whether the juror’s improper conduct benefits the attorney.”
Legal Obligation Should you report juror misconduct to the Court? U.S v. Breit, 712 F.2d 81 (4th Cir. 1983) – “A defendant who remains silent about known juror misconduct – who in effect, takes out an insurance policy against an unfavorable verdict – is toying with the court.” U.S. v. Desir, 273 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2001) – “[A] defendant who has knowledge of juror misconduct or bias at the time of trial waives such a claim by failing to raise it until after trial.” U.S. v. Costa, 890 F.2d 480 (1st Cir. 1989) – “[T]he defendants and their attorneys had known of the juror’s misconduct before the verdict but had not come forward with this information until after the verdict. The judge concluded that this failure to come forward constituted a waiver of any right the defendants may have had to raise the issue of juror misconduct.”
Interesting Note re: Jurors’ Obligations Juror can remain silent until asked an applicable question. –Thomas v. State, 338 So.2d 1045 (Ala. Crim. App. 1976) - “All parties are entitled to truthful answers from prospective jurors on examination of the venire and concealment of facts by silence by such a prospective juror denies the parties their right to advisedly exercise peremptory strikes, but it is permissible for a juror to remain silent until a question applies to him in a manner demanding a response.”
Is there an affirmative obligation to report a relationship between a juror and a party or lawyer?
Ethical Obligation Alabama Rule of Professional Conduct 3.5 clearly prohibits ex parte communication with a juror. Run same risk of waiving objections and arguments on appeal.
Relationship Does Not Necessarily Mean Juror Will Be Dismissed Whitehead v. State, 777 So.2d 781 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999) - Court did not err in failing to remove juror who stated during voir dire that the victim and her husband were distant cousins but that this relationship would have no effect on her ability to make a decision based strictly on the evidence because she had no personal relationship with the victim or his family.
Alabama Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1 – Competence “A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. A lawyer and client may agree, pursuant to Rule 1.2(c), to limit the scope of the representation with respect to a matter. In such circumstances, competence means the knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for such limited representation.”
Comment 8 to ABA Model Rule 1.1 Maintaining Competence “To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology, engage in continuing study and education, and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the law is subject.”
Best Practices Investigate - PROPERLY Before Trial During Voir Dire During Trial After Trial Ask Court for Social Media Jury Instructions Disclose Connections / Improper Contacts
Medical Privacy and Voir Dire Jurors’ Right to Privacy vs. Litigants’ Right to an Impartial Jury
Balancing Act The “gist of the history of selecting fair and impartial jurors allows that if the issue is relevant to determining the bias or prejudice of a prospective juror then the question is proper.” Brandborg v. Lucas, 891 F. Supp. 352, 361 (E.D. Tex. 1995).
Balancing Act Not relevant = expectation of privacy Privacy right outweighs potential information litigant might gain from questioning Relevant = less expectation of privacy Right to discover information affecting bias outweighs right of privacy
Jurors’ Medical Privacy Not a Settled Issue U.S. v. McDade “Just because one gets called into jury service does not give eager and assiduous counsel the right to … rummage through one’s medicine cabinet, … perusing the array of Rx labels.” But, the court still allowed some inquiry into medical history because it was relevant to the trial. 929 F. Supp. 815, 817 (1996).
Jurors’ Medical Privacy Not a Settled Issue Trial court could not “compel all potential jurors to waive HIPAA protections when they are questioned about their personal medical information.” State v. Wise, 200 P.3d 266, 269 (Wash. App. 2009)
Safeguards for Jurors’ Medical Privacy Jury questionnaires Anonymous jurors Judicial control of voir dire In camera questioning –With counsel present and on the record
Post-Trial Contact with Jurors 15 th Judicial Circuit: “After the trial’s completion, you are not obligated to answer questions presented by attorneys or the press. If unwanted questions persist, contact the court immediately.” 15jc.alacourt.gov/Jury/JURBOOK.pdf
Post-Trial Contact with Jurors U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama LR47.1 Juror Interrogation. “Communications with a juror concerning a case on which such person has served as a juror or alternate juror shall not, without prior express approval of a judge of this court, be initiated by any attorney, party, or representative of either, prior to the day following such person's release from jury service for such term of court.”
Post-Trial Contact with Jurors BOTTOM LINE: -Get permission -Know the court’s specific rules -Respect juror’s wishes
Ethical Implications In The Use Of Preemptory Strikes: The Challenge of Batson Race matters Gender matters Age matters
Quick Review of the Legal Framework In 1986, the Supreme Court in Batson v. Kentucky overturned the principal holding in Swain that "the Constitution does not require... an inquiry into the prosecutor's reasons for using his preemptory challenges to strike blacks from the petit jury panel in the criminal trial of a black defendant. The use of "preemptory challenges is subject to the commands of the Equal Protection Clause.” In 1991 in Powers v. Ohio, the Court held that a "criminal defendant may object to race-based exclusions of jurors effected through preemptory challenges whether or not the defendant and the excluded jurors share the same race.” Also in 1991, the Court extended its holding in Batson to apply to civil cases in Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614 (1991). In 1992 in Georgia v. McCullom, the Court held that the prosecution, and not just the defense, could challenge the racially discriminatory use of preemptory challenges. The Court held that prosecutors and defendants alike could make Batson challenges. In 1994 in J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. TB., the Court extended the allowable use of Batson challenges to gender, holding that preemptory challenges exercised solely on the basis of gender, much like challenges exercised solely on the basis of race, violated the Equal Protection Clause.
The Challenge Process A Batson challenge involves a three-step process: 1)Establishing a prima facie case of racial or gender-based discrimination Johnson v. California: the party making the Batson challenge meets this first inquiry making out "a prima facie case showing that the totality of the relevant facts gives rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose. The party making a Batson challenge meets their burden of establishing a prima facie case by simply raising an "inference that discrimination may have occurred."
The Challenge Process 2)Providing a sufficiently race- or gender-neutral reason for each questionable strike Purkett v. Elem and Hernandez v. New York held that this standard “does not demand an explanation that is persuasive, or even plausible." The Court will find that the challenged party's explanation is race neutral "[u]nless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the prosecutor's explanation." Further, the Court stated that a neutral explanation means "an explanation based on something other than the race of the juror.”
The Challenge Process 3)Showing that the litigant used the strikes allotted in a purposefully discriminatory manner – that the explanations provided are pretextual or a sham Most decisions to uphold or deny a Batson challenge are determined in this third step: "[i]t is not until the third step that the persuasiveness of the justification [for the peremptory challenge becomes relevant." Johnson, 545 U.S. at 171 (quoting Purkett, 514 U.S. at 768).
The Court refined analysis under this aspect: Miller-El v. Dretke: The prosecution struck ninety-one percent of the eligible African American venire members.109 At the same time, the prosecutor only struck twelve percent of non-black jurors.' 10 The Court stated that "[h]appenstance is unlikely to produce this disparity."' The Court also found that the explanations for the strikes was dubious. Snyder v. Louisiana: The Court held that in cases where a litigant strikes a venire member by invoking his or her demeanor, "the trial court must evaluate not only whether the [litigant's] demeanor belies a discriminatory intent, but also whether the juror's demeanor can credibly be said to have exhibited the basis for the strike attributed to the juror by the prosecutor.”
The Remedy The Batson Court addressed remedies for the constitutional violation it identified in just one place in its opinion, in footnote twenty-four. That footnote reads: In light of the variety of jury selection practices followed in our state and federal trial courts, we make no attempt to instruct these courts how best to implement our holding today. For the same reason, we express no view on whether it is more appropriate in a particular case … for the trial court to discharge the venire and select a new jury from a panel not previously associated with the case or to disallow the discriminatory challenges and resume selection with the improperly challenged jurors reinstated on the venire.
The footnote provides two possible solutions for a violation: 1)Starting over with a new panel 2)Reseating the stricken juror Subsequent cases indicate no preference for one over the other. There is variation from state to state.
Professional Conduct - Exercising Preemptory Strikes - Making a Batson Challenge - Responding to a Batson Challenge Is there inherent “tension” between zealous advocacy and candor toward the tribunal and fairness to opposing party and counsel in making and responding to Batson challenges? Does Batson “enhance” the lawyer’s ethical obligations?
Possible Solutions - Eliminate preemptory challenges? - Expand challenges for cause? - Add a professional rule of conduct? It has been suggested that the Rules of Professional Conduct include the following as a means to address the ethical implications of Batson: RULE 3.1.5 Conduct During Jury Selection A lawyer shall not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin against a member of the venire during jury selection. COMMENT: Discrimination in the jury selection process has no place in our judicial process. The discriminatory use of peremptory challenges not only harms litigants and the excluded juror but undermines public confidence in our judicial system. Thus, a lawyer exercising preemptory challenges in a discriminatory manner suggests an inability to fulfill the lawyer's professional role as a public citizen concerned with the fair administration of justice. Andres G. Gordon, Beyond Batson v. Kentucky: A Proposed Ethical Rule Prohibiting Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection, 62 Fordham L. Rev. 685, 713 (1993).
505 North 20 th Street, Suite 1800 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 (205)795-6658 csattorneys.com NONSTOP ADVOCATES