Juror Privacy in the Spotlight as Potential Indictment Looms Over Former President Trump
Grand jurors in Georgia are likely to decide whether criminal charges are appropriate against former President Donald Trump for his actions in the Peach State during the 2020 election. WABE Radio reports that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has suggested she will seek indictments for the former president later this summer. If indictments are returned, then the grand jurors’ names will be revealed. This practice differs from federal indictments, which include the name of the foreperson but do not disclose the other jurors’ identities, unless so ordered by the court. Under Georgia law, indictments must include a line listing the jurors’ names. Grand jurors who are not present for a vote are not identified in the indictment. One former Fulton County prosecutor, Gabe Banks, states that listing juror names “is done as a way to provide each defendant notice in the event that he/she wants to challenge the indictment process.” However, in high-profile cases such as this one, juror safety concerns are like to be a part of the conversation.
Report Finds That Black and Native American Persons Are Underrepresented in Washington Juries
According to a newly released report by the Washington State Minority and Justice Commission, in partnership with Seattle University researchers, people of color and people with lower incomes serve on Washington juries at levels beneath than their overall share of the population in certain communities. As part of the study, almost 250,000 usable survey responses were collected over 17 months in 2022 and 2023 – making it one of the largest surveys to date of juror demographics in Washington. The study also found that people who reported for jury duty were more likely to have a higher household income and level of education. 64% of respondents reported experiencing a conflict as an obstacle to jury service, including work, health, and caregiving responsibilities.
Paving the Way to Pre-Deliberation Discussions
In a recently released edition of Judicature, the Colorado District Judge Juan Villasenor and attorney Laurel Quinto vocalize their support of pre-deliberation discussion among jurors. Predeliberation discussion permits jurors to discuss the evidence prior to beginning formal deliberations. The practice has only been implemented in a few states and typically only takes place in civil trials, Colorado being one of them. There, the Colorado Supreme Court created a model instruction that district judges could give to civil juries that permitted pre-deliberation discussions; however, a district judge has the authority to limit or prohibit such discussions if good cause supports it. This change was made following a finding from Colorado’s Committee on the Effective and Efficient Use of Juries that forbidding jurors from engaging in predeliberation discussions does not support the adult learning process. Judge Villasenor adds that in his experience, pre-deliberation discussion allows jurors to resolve any confusion about the evidence in real-time and to create a collaborative environment that will later be conducive to formal deliberations.
Artificial Intelligence Offers Potential Benefits for Voir Dire
The latest issue of JD Supra (an online publishing platform for profit and non-profit legal enterprises) features a piece produced by Calloquy PBC, a tech-savvy consulting company based in Atlanta. Calloquy advocates using artificial intelligence to enhance the jury selection process. The author identifies several possible benefits of incorporating AI into voir dire. First, Calloquy posits that AI can increase access to a diverse and representative jury pool. By identifying jurors based on relevant demographic and geographic information, AI algorithms can improve jury diversity and reach communities that are underrepresented in jury participation. Additionally, AI can operate alongside remote technology, which allows prospective jurors to participate from their homes and eliminates the physical constraints that require them to come to court, to further widen the jury pool. Other benefits of using AI in voir dire include data-driven juror profiling, efficient screening and pre-selection, and identifying hidden biases. The author cautions that any use of AI for this purpose raises ethical considerations for attorneys reviewing digital information of potential jurors.