Jan
27

Gov. Malloy: You Can Make A Difference In The Courts

Governor Dannel P. Malloy should be bold in proposing reform in the state’s courts. It is not that the judiciary is opposed in principle to change. But bench and bar are inherently conservative. They cherish the status quo, even if the current manner of doing business is wasteful. Someone needs to take a leadership role. Who better than a new governor?

All it would take would be a simple piece of legislation to reduce the backlog of cases in the criminal and civil courts, cut the cost to both plaintiffs and defendants of taking a case to trial, and, as a result, improve public confidence in the courts. We can do this by eliminating the statutory requirement that each and every juror be questioned outside the present of all others, a practice we call individual sequestered voir dire.

No other state conducts business in this manner. Other states from time to time permit isolated questioning of jurors. But in those states, the right applies only to cases of special sensitivity. The general rule is group voir dire, the questioning of potential panelists as a group. That is how jurors in Connecticut are picked in the federal courts.

Under our current regime, it often takes far longer to select a jury than it does to present evidence. Indeed, it is not uncommon to hear lawyers say that serious trial preparation does not begin until jury selection starts. This, too, contributes to docket creep: Many cases settle after a few days of jury selection, after the parties have been forced to face the strengths and weaknesses of their case, and, incidentally, have raked in a couple of days’ fees for chatting folks up one at a time in court.

The most powerful voices calling for the retention of individual voir sequestered voir dire comes from public defenders, insurance defense lawyers and high-end plaintiff’s lawyers gambling for millions in each case.

To the public defenders, I say simple that there ought to be a rebuttable presumption in favor of group voir dire. If a case presents extraordinarily sensitive issues, such as the death penalty, or the rape of a child, make a case as to why group voir dire is not sufficient. Few folks regard misdemeanor trials as presenting such difficulties. I have heard private practitioners say they never recommend trial in misdemeanor cases because clients can’t afford trial. Are we permitting folks to plead guilty for economic reasons? I suspect it occurs to our shame.

On the civil side, the case for individual sequestered voir dire is even less compelling.

I do not try many civil cases. I prefer the criminal courts. But late last year, I stumbled into a civil court in Middletown. It took four or so days to pick the jury. There was no judge during selection, as is our rule. After years of picking under the steady eye of a judge, I was stunned by how casual the questioning was. We were invited to indoctrinate jurors with pet theories of our case, getting away with as much as our adversaries permitted. That is not the purpose of voir dire, despite what jury consultants and star lawyers contend. I have never had jury selection in a federal civil case take more than half a day, and I suspect I’ve won more than my share of those trials.

The plaintiffs’ bar wants a chance to preach in veiled terms to prospective jurors. Defense lawyers are content to bank fees. But waste is the norm.

There is no evidence that our system of selecting jurors promotes justice. It just promotes the interests and egos of lawyers. That’s one reason I was delighted to accept an invitation to speak at the Quinnipican University School of Law as part of a panel proposing voir dire reform. I hope someone from the governor’s office takes heed. It wouldn’t take much to save money, move the dockets and promote the administration of justice in a system that now operates like the domain of an semi-competent feudal lord.

 

Reprinted courtesy of the Connecticut Law Tribune.

Comments (2)
Posted on January 28, 2011 at 6:59 pm by EBB
Voir Dire
Several months ago, I was called to jury duty for a civil trial and my individual questioning by the attorneys took 25 minutes, even though I told them right off the bat that I had sympathy for the plaintiff and a prejudice against the defendant. They questioned me for 25 minutes about what had happened in my life to make me sympathetic to the plaintiff, and when all was done, I was rejected. They should have listened to me...I told them straight up that I couldn't be fair and impartial.

Posted on January 27, 2011 at 10:02 am by william doriss
Gov. Malloy\'s Opportunity
I have observed both practices. Individual voir dire worked to my advantage in CT. I would not want jury selection to be made by the judge. While you're at it, you can reduce more waste and expenses by acknowledging and eliminating malicious, petty and inconsequential prosecutions which destroy individuals and families needlessly in CT.
For Display:
What is the day of the week?
Confidential:
(Won't be displayed with comment)

Link must be approved, then will show on this page.

x

About Norm Pattis

Norm Pattis is a Connecticut based trial lawyer focused on high stakes criminal cases and civil right violations. He is a veteran of more than 100 jury trials, many resulting in acquittals for people charged with serious crimes, multi-million dollar civil rights and discrimination verdicts, and scores of cases favorably settled.

Personal Website

www.normpattis.com
www.normpattis.com

Law Firm Website

www.pattislawfirm.com
www.pattislawfirm.com

I believe that the state is a necessary fiction and that failing to combat it is the first step toward tyranny.
– Norm Pattis

Disclaimer:

Nothing in this blog should be considered legal advice about your case. You need a lawyer who understands the context of your life and situation. What are offered here are merely suggested lines of inquiry you may explore with your lawyer.

Pattis Video