GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME TO THE ORAL ARGUMENT CALENDAR AT THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT. THE FIRST MATTER WE HAVE FOR OUR CALENDAR THIS MORNING IS THE FINAL REPORT OF THE JURY INNOVATIONS COMMITTEE. AND I THINK JUDGE SHEVIN, YOU ARE GOING TO PRESENT THE REPORT, AND THEN WE ARE GOING TO HAVE FOUR COMMENTS, AND AS I UNDERSTAND, THE MARSHAL WILL GIVE YOU A RED LIGHT FOR EACH COMMENT. JUDGE SHEVIN.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND MEMBERS OF THE COURT. GOOD MORNING. I AM BOB SHEVIN, AND I AM HERE, TODAY, AS CHAIRMAN OF THE JURY INNOVATIONS COMMITTEE. I AM JOINED, THIS MORNING, BY CIRCUIT JUDGE TOM BATEMAN, OF LEON COUNTY, WHO CHAIRED ONE OF OUR KEY SUBCOMMITTEES. I WOULD LIKE TO SPEND A VERY FEW MOMENTS ON AN OPENING STATEMENT, TO JUST POINT OUT WHAT WE DID AND HOW WE DID IT. AND THEN I WOULD LIKE TO RESERVE APPROXIMATELY 15 MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL. AND TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE CONCERNING ANY OF THE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS. OUR CHARGE WAS TO REVIEW THE EXISTING JURY SYSTEM AND TO EVALUATE THE NEED TO IMPROVE, TO ENHANCE, AND TO REFORM THE SYSTEM. OUR COMMITTEE WAS VERY DIVERSE AS YOU ARE WELL AWARE. IT CONSISTED OF JUDGES, LAWYERS, ADMINISTRATORS, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, PERHAPS, FORMER JURORS. WE STARTED OUT WITH THE PREMISE THAT, AS A NATION, WE ARE IN THE MIDST OF A JURY REFORM REVOLUTION. WHY? BECAUSE THE TRADITIONAL ADVERSARIAL COURTROOM MODEL, WHICH VIEWS JURORS AS PASSIVE TRIERS OF FACT, IS BEING CORRECTLY CHALLENGED. IT IS ANTIQUATED. IT DOES NOT REFLECT THE WAY THAT ADULTS LEARN AND PROCESS INFORMATION. THE NEW LEARNING MODEL TREATS JURORS NOT AS CHILDREN BUT AS INTELLIGENT, INFORMED, ADULTS WHO POSSESS THE ABILITY TO MULTITASK AND INTERACTIVELY PROCESS INFORMATION. IT RECOGNIZES THAT JURORS ARE NOT AND SHOULD NOT BE BYSTANDERS BUT, RATHER, FULL PARTNERS IN THE TRIAL PROCEEDINGS. AS YOU ARE ALL AWARE, AS JUSTICES AND JUDGES, ADULTS LEARN INFORMATION BY ASKING QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSING THE INFORMATION, WHEN IT IS FRESH IN THEIR MINDS. WE CONDUCTED A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE JURY SYSTEM IN FLORIDA, APPLYING THE CONCEPTS OF THE NEW LEARNING MODEL. WE STARTED WITH THE CHALLENGE NOT TO ADHERE, NOT TO ADHERE TO THE STATUS QUO BUT TO ADVOCATE REFORM AND INNOVATIONS TO PUSH THE ENVELOPE. EVERY ASPECT OF A JUROR'S EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN REVIEWED. FROM MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION SHARED BY JUDGE BATEMAN, TO IN-COURT USE, CHAIRED BY RICKY SMITH, TO HOW JURORS ARE TREATED AND COMPENSATED, CHAIRED BY PROFESSOR LARRY MOORE HOUSE. SINCE JURY SELECTION IS -- LARRY MOREHOUSE. SINCE JURY SELECTION IS THE MOST DISPOSITIVE STAGE OF EACH TRIAL, I BELIEVE THAT OUR SYSTEMIC REVIEW WAS CLEARLY WAVRNT WARRANTED. TO GET -- WARJTED. TO GET STARTED, HERE -- WAS CLEARLY WARRANTED. TO GET STARTED, HERE IS WHAT WE DID. WE REVIEWED CALIFORNIA, COLORADO AND MANY OTHERS. ALL MANY OF OUR 48 RECOMMENDATIONS WERE CONTENTIOUS AND WERE CLOSELY AND VIGOROUSLY DEBATED, WE ACCOMPLISHED OUR MISSION, BECAUSE WE HAD ALMOST AWE AND IN MUST VOTE TO EVERYONE OF OUR -- A UNANIMOUS VOTE TO EVERYONE OF OUR 48 RECOMMENDATIONS. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN WE PRESENTED RECOMMENDATIONS ON JURY INSTRUCTIONS, PLAIN ENGLISH, QUOTE/UNQUOTE, WE WERE NOT SUGGESTING THAT THE INSTRUCTIONS COMMITTEE WASN'T IN ACCORD WITH US. OUR RECOMMENDATIONS HERE ARE ASPIRATIONAL. JURY INSTRUCTIONS SHOULD BE AS SIMPLE AND CLEAR AS POSSIBLE. WHILE ENSURING LEGAL ACCURACY, AND I AM CERTAIN THAT THE COMMITTEE'S REPRESENTATIVES WILL AGREE WITH THAT GOAL. WE APPLIED A REASONABLENESS TEST TO EACH OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. DOES IT ENHANCE THE EXPERIENCE? DOES IT IMPROVE THE PROCESS? AND ARE ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ACCEPTABLE? I BELIEVE YOU WILL FIND OUR RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE FUNDAMENTALLY SOUND AND WELL-REASONED. A NUMBER OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS, SUCH AS STATUTORY EXEMPTIONS, OBVIOUSLY INVOLVE LEGISLATIVE ACTION. BUT AS TO MOST OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS, WE RESPECTFULLY SUGGESTION THAT THIS COURT STRONGLY CONSIDER USING AND UTILIZEING ITS RULE-MAKING AUTHORITY EXPEDITIOUSLY, TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE. CONSISTENT WITH CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRAINTS.

JUDGE SHEVIN, REALIZING THAT YOU HAVE A LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME, AND I APPRECIATE THE BROAD OVERVIEW THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN US HERE, COULD YOU COMMENT BRIEFLY ON THE WORK THAT THE COMMITTEE DID OR THE -- OR THE ABILITY OF THE COMMITTEE, TO LOOK TO OTHER STATES WITH REFERENCE TO NUMBER OF THE SAME RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOU ALL HAVE MADE, AND TO ESTABLISH WHETHER OR NOT THOSE INNOVATIONS HAVE BEEN IN PLACE IN OTHER STATES, LONG ENOUGH THAT WE COULD BENEFIT BY THE EXPERIENCE THERE, INSOFAR AS THE RESPONSE, THEN, OF THE JUDGES AND THE PUBLIC AND JURORS, LAWYERS, THE LEGAL COMMUNITY, TO SIMILAR INNOVATIONS THAT YOU ALL ARE RECOMMENDING?

YES. WE HAD NUMEROUS CONFERENCES, VIDEOCONFERENCING, WITH ARIZONA, WE ATTENDED A NATIONWIDE JURY SUMMIT IN NEW YORK, AND WE WERE ABLE TO LOOK AT THEIR EXPERIENCE N ARIZONA, THEY HAVE HAD DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE FOR MORE THAN FOUR YEARS, AND IT HAS BEEN SOMETHING WELL ACCEPTED BY THE JUDICIARY, BY THE LAWYERS ON ALL SIDES, DEFENSE LAWYERS, AND THE PLAINTIFFS' LAWYERS, AND IT HAS BEEN WELL-ACCEPTED BY JURORS. THEY THINK IT REDUCES STRESS. IT MAKES THEM ASSURER OF THE -- IT MAKES THEM SURER OF THE FINAL VERDICTS THAT THEY RENDER. I WOULD LIKE TO RESERVE THE REST OF MY TIME FOR REBUTTAL. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE SCARRITT, I THINK YOU ARE FIRST.

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. JUDGES BATEMAN. I AM A TRIAL LAWYER FROM TAMPA, FLORIDA, HERE AS A PART OF THE FLORIDA TRIAL LAWYERS SECTION, AND I REPRESENT THE 7,000 TRIAL LAWYERS THAT ARE A MEMBER OF OUR SECTION. WE, AS A SECTION, STUDIED THIS REPORT BY COMMITTEE, AND THEN WE STUDIED IT AS A WHOLE. AND WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SOME GENERAL COMMENTS AND THEN SOME SPECIFIC COMMENTS, IF I COULD. GENERALLY, WHAT WE FELT WAS THAT THE JURY TRIAL SYSTEM IS FLAWED BUT STILL THE BEST SYSTEM IN THE WORLD. IT IS ONE THAT PROVIDES THE GREATEST AMOUNT OF ACCESS TO THE GREATEST NUMBER OF PEOPLE BUT, STILL, BUILDS IN SAFEGUARDS INTO THE SYSTEM, TO MINIMIZE THE NUMBER OF UNJUST JURY TRIAL RESULTS. WE HAVE JUDGES, LIKE JUDGE SHEVIN, JUDGE ALTENBERND, MY FORMER BOSS, WHO ARE HERE TO CORRECT THE MISTAKES THAT HAPPEN OF COURSE YOURSELVES BEING THE ULTIMATE POWER IN THAT REGARD. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE, ALSO, FELT THAT THE SYSTEM COULD BE IMPROVED. IT CAN. AS A SOCIETY, WE HAVE DEVELOPED, WE HAVE GROWN MORE SOPHISTICATED AND JURIES ARE SIMPLY MICROCAUSE ALSO OF SOUTO-MICROCAUSMS OF SOCIETY. THERE ARE BETTER WAYS TO AGREE WITH THAT, AND WE LOOKED UPON THE JURY INNOVATIONS COMMITTEE AS FORWARD IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SYSTEM, AND WE COMPLIMENT THE COMMITTEE FOR THE HARD AND SERIOUS WORK THAT THEY DID. LET ME START WITH THE POSITIVE COMMENTS FIRST. NUMBER SEVEN, STANDARDIZED JURY QUESTIONNAIRE. WE THINK THAT THAT IS A VERY GOOD IDEA. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO AROUND THE STATE, YOU SEE THAT THERE ARE VASTLY DIFERING METHODS OF OBTAINING INFORMATION ABOUT JURORS. IT IS VERY CHAOTIC. IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO HAVE A STANDARDIZED JURY QUESTIONNAIRE AND TO ASSIST YOU, WE HAVE ATTACHED TWO. ONE THAT WAS AUTHORED BY THE TAMPA BAY ABOTA GROUP AND THE OTHER BY THE NATIONAL ABOTA GROUP. THE SECOND IS A LITTLE MORE DETAILED, AND WE WOULD BE GLAD TO ASSIST THE COURT OR ANY COMMITTEE IN WORKING ON THAT AS A PROJECT. ABOLISHING THE 100-MILE RULE FOR THE USE OF DEPOSITIONS MADE A LOT OF SENSE TO US, SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE REALLY ISN'T ANY REASON FOR THAT ANYMORE. VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITIONS. YOU HAVE THE USEFUL DEPOSITIONS SHOULD BE WIDESPREAD, AND THERE IS NO REASON FOR THIS 100-MILE BARRIER. THE JURY NOTEBOOK, WE FELT, WAS, AGAIN, A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE, AS LONG AS IT WAS STRICTLY CONTROLLED BY THE JUDGE, AND YOU HAD, THE WAY WE ENVISIONED IT WOULD BE THAT YOU WOULD HAVE SECTIONS IN THERE FOR CRITICAL DOCUMENTS, CRITICAL PHOTOGRAPHS, AND SECTIONS IN THERE FOR BEING ABLE TO TAKE NOTES FOR THE JURORS AS THEY LISTENED TO THE EVIDENCE AND LISTENED TO THE WITNESSES. ARGUMENT AFTER INSTRUCTION. NUMBER 31. ANYONE WHO HAS TRIED THIS WILL NEVER GO BACK. IT IS WONDERFUL. IT REALLY IS. TO HAVE THE JUDGE INSTRUCT THE JURY AND THEN, LATER, AFTER THAT YOU STAND UP AND YOU ARGUE. WHAT YOU GET IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A LAWYER THAT HAS TO STAND UP AND SAY, WHAT I THINK THE JUDGE IS GOING TO TELL HAVE YOU THIS AND WHAT I THINK THE LAW IS GOING TO BE REPRESENTED TO YOU IS THIS. VERSUS WHAT THE JUDGE JUST SAID WAS THIS. AND HERE ARE THE FACTS. WHAT THE JUDGE JUST SAID IS THIS AND HERE ARE THE FACTS. SO WE STRONGLY, STRONGLY SUPPORT THAT. LET ME TALK TO YOU ABOUT SOME OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS WITH WHICH WE DID NOT AGREE. PRESENT OTHER CHALLENGES, A SUBJECT THAT IS VERY DEAR AND NEAR TO THE HEARTS OF TRIAL LAWYERS, AND WE WILL STATE IT PLAINLY THAT WE DO NOT THINK THAT THERE SHOULD BE ANY CHANGE WHATSOEVER THE TALK OF ABOLISH ABOLISHING PRESENT OTHER CHALLENGES IS WRONG. WE SHOULD NEVER ABOLISH PRESENT OTHER CHALLENGES. THERE IS AN IDEA TO STUDY IT. IT IS REALLY A DESELECTION PROCESS, SOME PEOPLE THINK, AND JUDGES DO NOT HAVE AS GOOD OF KNOWLEDGE AND THEY CAN'T, OF THE FACTS OF A PARTICULAR CASE, THAN DO THE ADVOCATES, AND SO THE ADVOCATES SOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE SOME CONTROL OVER THE DESELECTION PROCESS, WITH THE PRESENT OTHER CHALLENGES.

I DIDN'T HEAR THE LAST THING YOU SAID. I AM SORRY.

YOU WERE MAKING AN EXPLANATION TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE, THAT ISN'T INVOLVED WITH THE LEGAL SYSTEM. ISN'T EDUCATED ABOUT THAT, AND YOU WERE TRYING TO EXPLAIN WHY, WHAT THESE ARE AND WHY WE HAVE THEM. WHAT WOULD YOU SAY TO THE PUBLIC?

I WOULD SAY THAT, IT PROMOTES THE FAIRNESS TO HAVE, TO GIVE LAWYERS WHO KNOW THE CASE BEST, THE ABILITY TO REMOVE, FROM CONSIDERATION, CERTAIN JURY SELECTION, BECAUSE THEY HAVE A BODY OF KNOWLEDGE THAT ALLOWS THEM TO KNOW WHEN THEY HAVE A PERSON THAT WILL NOT BE A GOOD CANDIDATE BUT HAS NOT SAID ANYTHING THAT WOULD HAVE THEM STRICKEN FOR CAUSE. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE

MR. SCARRITT, I THINK YOUR TIME IS UP.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. DUNLAP.

GOOD MORNING, MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. MY NAME IS DAVE DUNLAP JR.. I AM A TRIAL LAWYER FROM TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA, AND WITH ME IS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE ABOTA, AND HE WANTED TO BE A PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS THIS MORNING AND IS A PART OF THE TRIAL LAWYERS SECTION. OUR RESPONSE, NUMBER 23 UNDER THE HEADING "NOTEBOOKS" WAS A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NUMBER 21, WHICH IS DEPOSITION SUMMARIES. WE DON'T OPPOSE THE USE OF NOTEBOOKS, AS IT WAS OUTLINED, AND WE DID HAVE SOME NEGATIVE COMMENTS ABOUT DEPOSITION SUMMARIES. LET ME BEGIN BY ADDRESSING JUDGE ANSTEAD'S LAST QUESTION. THE WAY I VIEW IT IS, DURING THE COURSE OF A TRIAL, DURING VOIR DIRE, IT IS VERY OFTEN THAT YOU CLEARLY GET AN INDICATION THAT ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PANEL IS NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO BE OBJECTIVE, THAT FOR WHATEVER REASON, HE IS NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL. HOWEVER, MANY TIMES THAT IS, QUOTE, TECHNICALLY CORRECTED, BY THE JUDGE MERELY ASKING HIM, WELL, YOU HAVE GIVEN THIS NEGATIVE RESPONSE OVER HERE, BUT DO YOU THINK YOU CAN BE FAIR AND OBJECTIVE ABOUT IT, AND HE IS NOT EXCUSED FOR CAUSE, BUT THE PARTIES ARE CLEARLY CONVINCED THAT, IF HE REMAINS ON THE PANEL THAT HE IS NOT GOING TO BE A MEMBER WHO IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO EVALUATE THE TESTIMONY AND TO DO WHAT WE ALL HOPE OCCURS, IN A TRIAL, AND THAT IS HAVE AN OBJECTIVE EVALUATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS. THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF PREEMPTORY CHALLENGES, AND THEY ARE A VERY NECESSARY PART, BECAUSE IT FILLS THE GAP BETWEEN CHALLENGES FOR CAUSE AND THOSE SITUATIONS IN WHICH YOU INHERENTLY KNOW THAT SOMEONE IS NOT GOING TO BE OBJECTIVE. TO ME THAT IS THE PURPOSE.

DO YOU AGREE IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO EXPLAIN THIS TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC HAD, WHO IS AWARE PEOPLE CAN BE EXCUSED FOR CAUSE, BUT NOW WE ARE CREATING ANOTHER, NOT CREATING, WE HAVE THIS OTHER CATEGORY, WHERE ALL OF US, PROBABLY, THAT HAVE BACKGROUNDS AS TRIAL LAWYERS OR TRIAL JUDGES OR WHATEVER, MAY BE IN ON IT AND SAY, YES, YOU KNOW ON, THE VIBES WEREN'T THERE OR WHATEVER WAS GOING ON, BUT, AGAIN, WOULD YOU AGREE, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO EXPLAIN THIS CONCEPT TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC?

WELL, YES. I THINK MOST PEOPLE WOULD UNDERSTAND THE EXPLANATION I JUST GAVE. I THINK MOST PEOPLE CAN RELATE TO. THAT MOST PEOPLE HAVE EXPERIENCES IN THEIR LIVES, WHERE THEY UNDERSTAND THAT, IF THEY ARE HONEST WITH THEMSELVES, THAT THEY CAN'T BE TOTALLY OBJECTIVE, GIVEN A CERTAIN SITUATION, THAT THEY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN, SO I, IT MAY BE A, IT IS NOT THE EASIEST TASK IN THE WORLD, BUT IS THAT THE, IS THAT A GOOD REASON FOR DOING AWAY WITH IT, JUDGE, IF IT IS DIFFICULT TO EXPLAIN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC? I DON'T THINK SO. I THINK THE ULTIMATE GOAL THAT ALL OF US SEEK IS TO HAVE A PANEL UP THERE THAT THE GENERAL PUBLIC, THE LAWYERS AND THE LITIGANTS INVOLVED, I MEAN, THEY ARE THE ONES THAT ARE, THAT BENEFIT MOST FROM THE PROCESS OF THE PEOPLE THAT COME BEFORE THE COURT TO HAVE THEIR DISPUTE DECIDED. IT IS THEIR RIGHTS, AS WELL, AND THEY ARE THE ONES THAT WE OUGHT TO FOCUS ON. AND NOT WHETHER THIS IS GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN EASILY EXPLAIN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, IN MY OPINION.

YOU DON'T FEEL THAT JUDGES WOULD ULTIMATELY COMPENSATE BY BEING MORE LENIENT AND APPLYING THE CAUSE, IF THE PRESENT OTHER WERE DONE AWAY WITH HE -- IF THE PREEMPTORY WAS DONE AWAY WITH?

THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A CORRESPONDING EFFORT, AND EVEN IF YOU DO, IT IS STILL UP TO THE TRIAL JUDGE AS TO WHETHER TO EXCUSE FOR CAUSEOR NOT, AND SO YOU ARE GOING TO GET, A, NECESSARILY, A VERY UNEVEN-HANDED APPROACH, BECAUSE JUDGES, AS WE ALL ARE, ARE DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS. SOME OF THEM ARE GOING TO BE MORE INCLINED TO CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE, EVEN IF THE STANDARDS WERE ADJUSTED. I STILL THINK THAT THERE IS A VERY NECESSARY PLACE IN THE SYSTEM, FOR PREEMPTORY CHALLENGE AND I THINK IT SERVES A VERY USEFUL GOAL. AND --

I UNDERSTAND.

THE OTHER THING, AND MY TIME IS SHORT, SO LET ME CONCENTRATE ON THE OTHER AREA THAT OUR COMMITTEE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT, AND BY THE WAY, THE PROCESS, TO ME, WAS FASCINATING. I WILL TAKE ONE SECOND TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT IT. IS THAT, ABOTA, COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT OF THE TRIAL LAWYERS SECTION, WITHOUT KNOWING THEIR EFFORT WAS IN PLACE, CAME UP WITH OUR RECOMMENDATIONS, IF YOU COMPARE THE TWO, THEY ARE STRIKINGLY SIMILAR. I THOUGHT THAT WAS EXTREMELY INTERESTING. THE LAST THING I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS MYSELF TO IS DISCUSSION OF PRIOR TO DELIBERATIONS, THE JURY CONSIDERING THE MATTER PRIOR TO DELIBERATIONS. I THINK THAT IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT WE MAINTAIN THAT. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE

MR. DUNLAP, YOUR TIME IS UP. I AM AFRAID WE HAVE TO STAY ON OUR CALENDAR. THANK YOU. WE HAVE YOUR COMMENTS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DR. HINES.s

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS DWIGHT HINES. I AM A WRITER AND A PRIVATE CITIZEN, AND TODAY I AM GOING TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS THAT I THINK ARE IN LINE WITH THE JURY INNOVATIONS COMMITTEE, AS WELL AS A PAPER THAT DR. PARIENTE WROTE. DR. PARIENTE WROTE, A VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME AGO, THAT JUDGES NEED TO DO MORE THAN GIVE LECTURES AND TO MAKE SPEECHES WHEN THEY GO INTO THE CLASSROOMS DURING LAW WEEK. THEY NEED TO GET HANDS-ON, ACTIVE INVOLVEMENT BY THE CITIZENS. THE THREE COMMENTS THAT I AM GOING TO MAKE ARE SPECIFIC SUGGESTIONS THAT COULD BE DONE. THE FIRST, I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF JUROR SERVICE THAT WOULD BE GIVEN TO EACH JUROR, ONCE THEY COMPLETE THEIR JUROR SERVICE. IT WOULD BE SIGNED, REAL SIGNATURE, NOT A MACHINE SIGNATURE BY THE JUDGE AND THE CLERK OF THE COURT. IT WOULD HAVE THE SEAL OF THE SPECIFIC CIRCUIT. IT WOULDN'T BE ACROSS ALL CIRCUITS. IT WOULDN'T HAVE A STANDARDIZED. IT WOULD REFLECT A FLAVOR. THIS IS THE TYPE OF THING THAT WOULD APPEAL TO ART STUDENTS AND GRAPHIC DESIGN STUDENTS. IT WOULD BE A CONTEST. I THINK, I WILL TALK ABOUT FINANCES IN A MINUTE, BECAUSE I KNOW THEY ARE A CONSIDERATION. THE SECOND ISSUE THAT I HAVE LEARNED, IN GATHERING DATE -- GATHERING DATA FROM TEN CIRCUITS AND COUNTIES THAT I HAVE LOOKED AT. WE HAVE NO WAY OF CHECKING AND NO ONE IS CHECKING THE AND DOMIZED PROCEDURE FOR SELECTING INJURIES. WHEN YOU GO INTO THE CLASSROOMS IN THE UPPER LEVEL UNIVERSITIES, YOU CAN SAY WE NEED A COMPUTER PROGRAM TO CHECK ON THESE RANDOM  RANDOMIZED PROCEDURES. SOME OF THESE WERE ADOPTED AND TAKEN INTO PRACTICE A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO AND THEY ARE NOT BEING CHECKED. IT IS A GOOD IDEA TO DO. THAT THEY WOULD HAVE NO ADDITIONAL CONSTRAINTS, NO ADDITIONAL WORK ON THE JUDGES OR THE CLERKS OF THE COURT. NO ADDITIONAL HOURS. I SEE THE HOURS THEY ARE PUTTING IN HOW -- PUTTING IN NOW. THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT PRIVACY AND SECURITY. THE THIRD THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE DONE AND WOULD HELP ON THE JUROR INNOVATIVE PROCESS, WE NEED SOME PROCESS OF SELECTING OUR POOL. RIGHT NOW THE DIVERSITY LOOSE FROM 20 PERCENT RESPONSE RATE TO 55 PERCENT RESPONSE RATE.

CAN YOU BREAK THAT DOWN BY MINORITY RESPONSE?

I CAN'T. WE DON'T HAVE THE DATA BROKEN DOWN THAT WAY. THE ONLY PLACE THAT I KNOW THAT HAS DONE THAT IS MARICOPA COUNTY I IN ARIZONA. THEY ARE FINDING ONLY 26 PERCENT OF THE HISPANIC POPULATION ARE TURNING UP IN THE JURY POOL. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS A BIAS FOR OR AGAINST A GROUP OR NOT.

YOU ARE ACTUALLY SAYING THERE ARE CERTAIN COUNTIES WHERE YOU LOOKED AT AND YOU SENT OUT 100 PERCENT SUMMONS AND ONLY 20 PERCENT ARE RESPONDING.

RIGHT. YES.

BUT THE MOST IN THE COUNTY IS 56%ENT?

THAT IS THE HIGHEST LEVEL. CLAY COUNTY WAS 55 PERCENT. I THINK THESE NEWER IDEAS ARE GOING TO GET MORE PEOPLE INVOLVED, LIKE YOU WROTE IN YOUR PAPER, WITH HANDS-ON ACTIVE PARTICIPATION.

IS THAT LESS WHEN THE COUNTIES WERE USING THE VOTER REGISTRATION LIST? IN OTHER WORDS HAS THE RESPONSE RATE GONE DOWN?

I DIDN'T LOOK AT. THAT IT SHOULD BE GREATER. I THINK THAT WAS ONE REASON FOR GOING TO THE MOTOR VOTER IS AN INCREASE, BUT I DIDN'T LOOK AT. THAT FINALLY IN THIS WEEK'S LAW REVIEW THERE, IS A ARTICLE BY LEE EPSTEIN AND GARY KING, WHERE THEY POINT OUT THE NEED FOR EMPERICAL WORK IN THE LAW, AND THEY POINT OUT A NUMBER OF GOOD STUDIES T. IT IS A VERY GOOD ARTICLE, AND THEY POINT OUT THE MONIES IN THE COURTS IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE, AND THE UNIVERSITIES DO GIVE SEED MONEY TO PROFESSORS TO STUDIES OF DIFFERENT THINGS AND ONCE THEY COMPILE THE DATE, A THEY GO TO THE NATIONAL SCIENCE, THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, THE UNIVERSITY FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT, COME JULY ARE GOING TO NEED SOMETHING TO DO BECAUSE THEY ARE GOING TO BE DONE WITH ALL OF THEIR REDISTRICTING STUDIES. I THINK THIS, ANYTHING THAT IS ADOPTED OR RECOMMENDED BY THE COURT, HAS TO BE SURE IT IS NOT JUST A FEEL GOOD THING. THAT WE DO HAVE EMBEDDED IN IT, A GOOD WAY OF EVALUATING WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A QUESTION OF A JUROR, I THINK WE NEED TO CHECK TO SEE IF PEOPLE ARE FRAMING IT AND PUTTING IT ON THEIR WALL, IF IT MAKES THEM FEEL BETTER ABOUT THEIR JUROR EXPERIENCE, MAKE THEM TALK MORE ABOUT IT. THOSE ARE ALL, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EMPERICALLY EVALUATE THOSE. IF, JUST FOR EXAMPLE, WE LOOK AT THE JUROR CERTIFICATE, IT WILL COST ABOUT $1.-- IT WILL COST ABOUT 1.5 CENTS PER PAGE FOR THE PARCHMENT AND 1.7 CENTS FOR THE I THINK, DEPENDING IF YOU HAVE A GOLD SEAL. NOW IT COSTS A MINIMUM OF 34 CENTS TO SEND OUT A JUROR SUMMONS. THAT IS JUST A STAMP. PART OF THE STUDY SHOULD BE DOES THIS INCREASE THE RESPONSE RATE, WHEN WE START DOING THESE DIFFERENT THINGS, AND THOSE ARE ALL AMENABLE TO EMPERICAL STUDY. FINALLY, THIS COURT HAS A GREAT DEAL OF MORAL AUTHORITY. IF THEY RECOMMEND THAT THIS GETS DONE IN THEIR WRITERS AND IN THEIR SPEECHES, I THINK IT WILL BE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. I AM SYLVIA WALBOLT, AND I WAS PRIVILEGED TO SIT ON THE JURY INNOVATIONS COMMITTEE AND IN FACT, I CHAIRED THE SUBSUBCOMMITTEE THAT PREPARED THE RECOMMENDATION ON INSTRUCTIONS THAT I AM NOW GOING TO ADDRESS. BUT I APPEAR HERE, TODAY, AS CHAIR OF THIS COURT'S STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTION COMMITTEE ON CIVIL CASES, TOGETHER WITH CHRIS ALTENBERND, THE COMMITTEE'S VICE-CHAIR. WE SUBMITTED WRITTEN RESPONSES, IN SEVERAL RESPECTS, AND ASKED FOR THIS COURT'S GUIDANCE, AS IT WRITES ITS DECISION ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS, AND I WANT TO ADDRESS JUST A COUPLE OF THEM THIS MORNING. AS TO RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 25, THE STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTION COMMITTEE OBVIOUSLY WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREES THAT JURY INSTRUCTIONS SHOULD BE WRITTEN IN A SIMPLE AND PLAIN ENGLISH AS POSSIBLE. OUR CONCERN IS THAT THIS HAS BEEN A GOAL OF OUR COMMITTEE, SINCE THE OUTSET OF THE COMMITTEE, SOME 40 YEARS AGO, AND WE ARE CONCERNED THAT THIS COURT NOT SIMPLY WRITE A DECISION THAT APPROVES THAT RECOMMENDATION AND LEAVES IT UNCLEAR TO OUR COMMITTEE, AS TO WHETHER WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WE ARE CURRENTLY DOING. FOR EXAMPLE, THE ISSUE WAS RAISED AT OUR COMMITTEE MEETING, DOES THIS RECOMMENDATION MEAN THAT THE COMMITTEE SHOULD BE GOING BACK, AND RELOOKING AT ALL OF THE INSTRUCTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THIS COURT, OVER THIS 40-YEAR PERIOD OF TIME TO SEE IF WE CAN MAKE THEM SIMPLER. THAT WOULD BE A MONUMENTAL TASK FOR A VOLUNTEER COMMITTEE. IT WOULD REQUIRE FUNDING. IT WOULD REQUIRE STAFFING. IT WOULD NEGATE THE WIDE BODY OF CASE LAW THAT NOW EXISTS THAT HAS APPROVED MANY OF THE STANDARD INSTRUCTIONS. WE HAVE A SUBCOMMITTEE, A PLAIN ENGLISH SUBCOMMITTEE OF OUR COMMITTEE, THAT IS CHARGED WITH THE SPECIFIC TASK OF LOOKING AT EVERY INSTRUCTION BEFORE WE SUBMIT IT TO THIS COURT, TO SEE IF NOT ONLY IT IS ACCURATE, WHICH THE WHOLE COMMITTEE DOES, BUT TO SEE THAT IT IS WRITTEN IN AS SIMPLE A LANGUAGE AS WE CAN, AND I ASK THAT SUBCOMMITTEE, BEFORE THIS ARGUMENT, TO TAKE THE NEGLIGENCE INSTRUCTION THAT HAS BEEN IN PLACE MANY YEARS AND SEE IF THEY COULD MAKE IT SIMPLER, AND THEY HAVE SPENT COUNTLESS HOURS TRYING TO DO SO, AND THE CONSENSUS IS WE DIDN'T IMPROVE IT ONE BIT AND, IN FACT, MADE IT PROBABLY LESS ACCURATE. SO I URGE, ON BEHALF THE COMMITTEE, THIS COURT TO WRITE ON THIS RECOMMENDATION AND GIVE US CLEAR DIRECTIONS. IF YOU WANT US TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE, WE REALLY WOULD APPRECIATE IT, IF YOU WOULD TELL US THAT. IF IT IS SIMPLY AN ASPIRATIONAL RECOMMENDATION, AS JUDGE SHEVIN INDICATED IN HIS REMARKS, AND AS I CAN ASSURE YOU WAS INTENDED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE, THEN THEof COMMITTEE WILL OBVIOUSLY STRIVE TO CONTINUE TO SUBMIT OUR PROPOSED INSTRUCTIONS TO THIS COURT, IN AS CLEAR AND SIMPLE LANGUAGE AS POSSIBLE. WE, ALSO, ASK THE COURT TO GIVE US AFFIRMATIVE GUIDANCE ON NUMBER 29 AND NUMBER 34, WHICH ARE THE RECOMMENDATIONS ON JURY DELIBERATIONS AND JURY IMPASSE. THE COMMITTEE HAS ALREADY SUBMITTED, AND THIS COURT HAS ALREADY APPROVED, INSTRUCTIONS ON BOTH OF THOSE ISSUES. NONETHELESS, WE HAVE BEEN LOOKING, SINCE THIS REPORT CAME OUT, AT THE POSSIBILITY OF A MORE DETAILED INSTRUCTION ON JURY DELIBERATIONS, TAKING THE MODEL THAT THE AMERICAN JUDICATORY SOCIETY HAS PROPOSED, INTO ACCOUNT, AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT THERE HAS BEEN VERY STRONG DISAGREEMENT ON OUR COMMITTEE, AS TO WHETHER WE SHOULD DO ANYTHING MORE THAN WE ALREADY DO AND INTERESTINGLY, IT IS ESPECIALLY THE TRIAL JUDGES WHO ARE THE MEMBERS OF OUR COMMITTEE WHO FEEL THAT WE SHOULD NOT DO ANYTHING MORE THAN IS CURRENTLY DONE, SO, AGAIN, IF THIS COURT WANTS SOMETHING MORE THAN THE EXISTING INSTRUCTION, WE REALLY NEED SOME AFFIRMATIVE DIRECTION. AS TO THE RECOMMENDATION OPPOSE THE VERDICT DISCUSSIONS, AGAIN, THIS COURT HAS VERY RECENTLY APPROVED OUR PROPOSED INSTRUCTION , CAN WHICH IS DIRECTLY CONTRARY TO THE RECOMMENDATION OF THIS COMMITTEE AND WE WILL NEED AS MUCH AFFIRMATIVE GUIDANCE, BECAUSE THAT RECOMMENDATION DOES HAVE SOME VERY THORNY ISSUES. THE LAST POINT I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS IS THE RECOMMENDATION ON CASE-SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS, BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR WHAT THAT RECOMMENDATION INTENDED. ALTHOUGH IT DID CONTEMPLATE THE POSSIBILITY OF INSTRUCTIONS THAT WOULD BE VERY FACT-SPECIFIC, SUCH AS A GLOSSARY OF TERMS, WHAT IT REALLY WAS INTENDED TO DO WAS TO SUGGEST THAT, IN A TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE CASE, FOR INSTANCE, THAT THE JUDGE MIGHT GIVE THE INSTRUCTION ON A STANDARD FOR WHAT A TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WAS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE CASE, SO THAT THE JUMP HEARS THE EVIDENCE ON -- THE JURY HEARS THE EVIDENCE ON TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE, KNOWING THAT IT IS GOING TO HAVE TO APPLY, SO TO THAT EXTENT, IT WOULD SIMPLY BE USING THE INSTRUCTIONS THAT WE HAVE ALREADY SUBMITTED AND THIS COURT HAS APPROVED. THANK YOU. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MS. WALBOLT. JUDGE SHEVIN.

.

I HAVE A QUESTION, AND IT HAS TO DO WITH WHAT SEEMS TO BE SOMEWHAT CONTROVERSIAL, WHICH IS DELIBERATION BEFORE OR DISCUSSION OF THE CASE BEFORE IT IS SUBMITTED TO THE JURY. I GUESS AS A, WE KNOW THAT JURORS, AT TIMES, WILL DISCUSS THE CASE BEFORE IT GETS TO THE FINAL DECISION, BUT I NOTE THAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION ONLY EXTENDS THIS TO CIVIL SAZ -- CASES, AND A LOT OF THE RECOMMEND DALTIONS, ACTUALLY, ARE -- A LOT OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS, ACTUALLY, ARE ONLY DIRECTED TO CIVIL CASES. MY QUESTION OVERALL, IF THESE ARE SUGGESTIONS THAT ARE GOING TO IMPROVE JURORS' UNDERSTANDING OF A CASE, AND IMPROVE THE PROCESS OF SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH, WHY IS IT THAT WE ARE DIRECTING THIS TO CIVIL CASES AND NOT CRIMINAL CASES, AND IS THERE SOME CONCERN THAT MAYBE WHAT WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT IS THAT JURORS MAYBE, THIS MAY BE HAVING AN ADVERSEATH AFFECT, AS FAR AS MAKING UP THEIR MINDS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE CASE, WHEN THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE AN OPEN MIND?

FIRST OF ALL --

I GUESS IT IS TWOFOLD. FIRST, I AM WORRIED ABOUT THE PREVERDICT DISCUSSIONS AND ALSO I WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHY MANY OF THESE ARE ONLY DIRECTED TO THE CIVIL ARENA.

KEEP IN MIND THAT, WHEN WE ADVOCATE, AND I THINK THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST CUTTING-EDGE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE ARE MAKING, WE THINK IT IS PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE, AND WHEN WE DID IT, WE FOLLOWED THE ARIZONA ROAD MAP, AND THAT IS THAT THEY CAN ONLY DISCUSS IT WHEN THEY ARE IN THE JURY ROOM TOGETHER. THEY CAN ONLY DISCUSS IT AS A GROUP. AND THE, IT IS NOW PERMITTED NOT JUST IN ARIZONA, IN NORTH DAKOTA, A IN COLORADO, IN MASSACHUSETTS, AND IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND IN ARIZONA, IT IS ONLY USED IN CIVIL CASES. NOW, THEY HAVE, NOW, A RULE, THE COMMITTEE HAS NOW PROPOSED A RULE, TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, TO EXTEND IT TO CRIMINAL CASES, BUT WE FELT THAT BECAUSE IT MAY RUN INTO SOME CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRAINTS, THAT WE OUGHT TO TREAD LIGHTLY, AND THAT IS WHY WE RECOMMENDED IT AT THE PRESENT TIME, ONLY FOR CIVIL CASES.

WHAT DO YOU SEE AS THE ACTUAL BENEFIT OF THIS?

THE BENEFIT IS THE ADULT LEARNING MODEL. THEY GET TO ASK QUESTIONS. THEY GET TO DISCUSS IT WHILE IT IS FRESH IN THEIR MINDS. IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A THREE-WEEK TRIAL, HOW CAN THEY REALLY REMEMBER WHAT WAS TESTIFIED TO IN THE FIRST WEEK OR THE FIRST SEVERAL DAYS, WHEN THEY HAVEN'T EVEN BEEN ABLE TO ADDRESS IT? AND BY THE WAY, IN ARIZONA, A SURVEY WAS DONE, AND UP TO 44 PERCENT OF THE JURORS IN THIS SURVEY DISCUSSED THE EVIDENCE ANYHOW, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE DIRECTED NOT TO.

BUT WOULD THE TAKING OF NOTES THE PROPOSAL CONCERNING THE TAKING OF NOTES, HELP IN THIS REGARD?

YES. I THINK IT WOULD, BUT I THINK WHAT WILL HELP MUCH MORE THAN THAT WILL BE IF THEY CAN DISCUSS CERTAIN WITNESSES AS THEY HAVE TESTIFIED OR A DAY OF TESTIMONY OR A WEEK OF TESTIMONY, BUT THAT THEY OUGHT NOT TO BE TOLD THAT THEY CAN'T DISCUSS IT AT ALL, WHERE MANY OF THEM DO ANYHOW. AND I THINK IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO PROCESS THE INFORMATION, WHEN IT IS FRESH IN THEIR MINDS.

HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT IT IS ACROSS THE BOARD, WHETHER IT IS A SHORT TRIAL OR A LONG TRIAL? THAT IN THESE STATES, THAT THEY ALLOW IT JUST ACROSS THE BOARD?

YEAH. IN THE STATES I MENTIONED, THE FOUR OR FIVE STATES I MENTIONED, IT IS ACROSS THE BOARD.

AND IS --

IN CIVIL CASES ONLY.

HAVE THEIR BEEN ANY STUDIES AS TO ANY ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES FROM THE, THIS OCCURRING, THAT IS, AGAIN, THE DANGER OF BEING THAT THEY FIX ON ONE WITNESS AND SAY, WELL, WE HAVE REJECTED THAT ONE OR WE ACCEPT THAT WITNESS?

IF I MAY JUST READ YOU A PARAGRAPH OR TWO OUT OF A REPORT THAT WAS ISSUED IN MAY OF 2 STHOU -- IN MAY OF 2000, BY THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT COMMITTEE TO THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT, ON THE MORE EFFECTIVE USE OF JURORS. IT WAS RECENTLY REPORTED. HERE IS WHAT THEY SAID. WE HAVE HAD FOUR YEARS' EXPERIENCE WITH THIS REFORM IN CIVIL TRIALS, REPORTS FROM JUDGES, JURORS AND MOST LAWYERS ARE VERY POSITIVE. POST VERDICT INTERVIEWS WITH CIVIL JURORS INDICATE THAT THEY ARE HIGHLY-SATISFIED WITH THIS PROCEDURE. THEY VALUE IT, TOO. JURY, JUROR DISCUSSIONS DURING BREAKS IN THE TRIAL HELPS THEM UNDERSTAND THE EVIDENCE AS IT COMES IN. IT SERVES AS AN AID IN REMEMBERING THE EVIDENCE. IT ALLOWS DELIBERATIONS TO BE MORE FOCUSED, BECAUSE THEY HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED MUCH OF THE EVIDENTIARY FOREGROUND, AND IT HELPS REDUCE JUROR STRESS, AND JUDGES REPORT NO KNOWN INSTANCES THIS IS IN ARIZONA, NO KNOWN INSTANCES OF NEW TRIALS HAVING TO BE GRANTED AT THE TRIAL LEVEL OR ON APPEAL, DUE TO JURY DISCUSSIONS. AND THE STUDY DISPELS THE NATURE THAT ALLOWING SUCH DISCUSSIONS WILL ENCOURAGE PREMATURE JUDGMENTS ABOUT WHO SHOULD PREVAIL. IN ADDITION, THE REPORT REFLECTS HIGH LEVELS OF JUDGE AND JUROR SUPPORT FOR THE CHANGE. NOTABLY, JURORS REPORTED THAT, AS A RESULT OF THE DISCUSSIONS, THEY GAINED A MUCH BETTER GRASP OF THE EVIDENCE. AND THAT HAS BEEN THE REPORT IN THE, ALL OF THE STATES THAT HAVE TRIED IT. WE THINK IT IS A VERY IMPORTANT RECOMMENDATION THAT WAS MADE BY OUR COMMITTEE.

AND NO STATE HAS DONE IT IN THE CRIMINAL?

NO STATE HAS DONE IT, TO DATE BUT THERE IS A RULE PENDING IN THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE

JUSTICE LEWIS.

JUDGE SHEVIN, IN THE STUDY THAT WAS CONDUCTED, DID THEY, ALSO,, SURVEY JURY PANELS WHO PROCEEDED UNDER THE SYSTEM THAT WE USED, SO THAT THEY COULD COMPARE THE TWO, OR WAS THE SURVEY ONLY CONDUCTED WITH REGARD TO THOSE OPERATING UNDER WHAT YOU WOULD DESCRIBE AS THE NEW SYSTEM?

I THINK THEY STUDIED BOTH.

BOTH OF THEM.

YES. THEY DID. AND WE WILL BE HAPPY TO PROVIDE YOU WITH A COPY OF IT.

JUDGE SHEVIN, WE KNOW THAT, OVER THE YEARS, THERE HAVE BEEN SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS WITH THE USEFUL PREEMPTORY CHALLENGES FOR TO EXCLUDE RACIAL GROUPS AND OTHERS FROM JURY PANELS, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, IS THERE ANY OTHER PARTICULAR PROBLEM THAT THIS NEW RULE THAT YOU ARE PROPOSING IS MEANT TO ADDRESS?

WELL, THE PREEMPTORY --

ARE THERE OTHER PROBLEMS THAT THE COMMITTEE SEES, WITH PREEMPTORY CHALLENGE?

THE PREEMPTORY CHALLENGE ISSUE WAS THE MOST HOTLY-DEBATED ISSUE BEFORE OUR COMMITTEE. WE TOOK MANY VOTES, AND MOST OF THEM TURNED OUT TO BE TIES. JUST AS MANY PEOPLE SUPPORTED REDUCING OR ELIMINATING AND GOING TO CHALLENGES FOR CAUSE AND HAVING THEM ISSUED MORE RAPIDLY, READILY AND LIBERALLY, AND HALF OF OUR GROUP TOOK THE POSITION IT SHOULDN'T BE CHANGED AT ALL. SO WE ENDED UP WITH A, WE KIND OF PUNTED AND SAID OKAY, LET'S RECOMMEND THIS STUDY. NOW, RERECOGNIZED THAT BECAUSE OF THE FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE STATE THAT, A STUDY WOULD BE VERY, VERY DIFFICULT TO FUND AT THIS POINT, AND, BUT, AT THE SAME TIME, WE FELT THAT AT LEAST IT MERITED MORE REVIEW, AND I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE OUGHT TO BE MORE LIBERALIZATION OF THE COURT'S ABILITY AND DESIRE TO CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE, SO THAT WE COULDN' NEED PREEMPTORY CHALLENGES, BUT WE UNDERSTAND THE LAWYERS' VIEWPOINT THAT THEY KNOW THE CASE BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE AND THAT THEY HAVE VIEWS AND FEELINGS AND INSTINCTS THAT THEY NEED TO CARRY OUT THROUGH PREEMPTORY CHALLENGES. SO.

ONE OTHER QUICK QUESTION THAT HAS TO DO WITH THIS 100-MILE RULE AND THE CHANGE. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE 100-MILE CAME UP WITH, WHERE IT WAS DERIVED FROM ORIGINALLY, BUT YOU ALSO, HAVE IN YOUR REPORT, THAT THERE SHOULD BE MORE USE OF DEPOSITION SUMMARIES, IMPLYING THAT JURORS, WHEN THEY HEAR DEPOSITIONS OR WATCH, YOU KNOW, VIDEO DEPOSITIONS, THAT THEIR EYES GLAZE OVER BECAUSE IT IS NOT AS MEANINGFUL. IF THE GOAL IS TO TRY TO ENHANCE JURY UNDERSTANDING AND INTEREST IN THE TRIAL AND THE WAY WE KNOW PEOPLE DO LEARN AND HAVE ALIVE WITNESS VERSUS READING A DEPOSITION, WHY WOULD WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE THE USE OF MORE DEPOSITIONS, BECAUSE, IF OUR GOAL IS TO ENHANCE JUROR UNDERSTANDING IN THE PROCESS?

THAT IS OUR GOAL. THAT IS OUR GOAL. AND I THINK THAT THE VIEW WAS PROMPTED PRIMARILY BY THE FACT THAT THERE IS MORE VIDEOCONFERENCEING, VIDEO TAKING OF DEPOSITIONS, THAT CAN BE USED AND THERE FOR THE 100-MILE RULE SEEMS TO BE SOMEWHAT ANTIQUATED AND UNNECESSARY, AND THE OTHER SIDE CAN ALWAYS CALL THAT WITNESS OR SUBPOENA THAT WITNESS TO ATTEND. BUT I DON'T THINK WE ARE BEING CONTRADICTORY IN THOSE TWO PROPOSALS, BUT IF THE COURT FEELS WE ARE, THEN OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVE THE FINAL SAY ON WHAT SHOULD COME OUT AND WHAT SHOULD NOT.

THE QUESTION OF USING A VOTER REGISTRATION ROLL, GOING BACK TO THAT, VERSUS THE DRIVERS LICENSES, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, ONE OF THE PURPOSES IS SO YOU WOULD WEED OUT FELONS AND, WHOSE RIGHTS HAVE NOT BEEN RESTORED, ET CETERA. COULD THAT BE ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH THE JUROR QUESTIONNAIRE?

PERHAPS.

I AM WONDERING WHY WE WOULD GO BACK TO A SYSTEM WE JUST CHANGED NOT TOO LONG AGO.

WELL, WE DIDN'T RECOMMEND GOING BACK. WE BASICALLY AGREED WITH THE PRESENT SYSTEM, BUT THE CONCERN OF RULING OUT FELONS, PERHAPS THAT CAN BE TAKEN CARE OF IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE, IF THE QUESTIONNAIRE IS ADEQUATE AND DEALS WITH THOSE TYPE OF ISSUES. IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS, I APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT THAT WE RECEIVED ON THIS END OF THE TABLE. THANK YOU. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE

THANK YOU VRY MUCH, JUDGE SHEVIN. THE COURT IS VERY APPRECIATIVE TO YOU AND TO EACH OF THE MEMBERS OF YOUR COMMITTEE FOR THE ENTHUSIASM AND FOR THE THOROUGHNESS BY WHICH YOU HAVE GONE INTO THIS MATTER AND WE APPRECIATE ALL COUNSEL APPEARING HERE THIS MORNING AND GIVING US YOUR COMMENTS, AND THE COURT WILL CERTAINLY TAKE THIS MATTER UNDER VERY SERIOUS ADVISEMENT. SO WE APPRECIATE YOUR BEING HERE.