In re Amendments to Rules of Civ. Procedure
| Decision Date | 04 October 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. SC05-1091.,SC05-1091. |
| Parties | In re AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, THE FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, THE STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES, AND THE STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES—IMPLEMENTATION OF JURY INNOVATIONS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Michael Ufferman, P.A. and Paula S. Saunders, Office of Public Defender, Tallahssee, FL, on behalf of Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; Bill Wagner, Tampa, FL; Bill Wagner, Tampa, FL; the Honorable Kathleen F. Dekker, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, FL; the Honorable Nancy A. Daniels, Office of Public Defender, Tallahassee, FL, on behalf of the Florida Public Defender Association; Daniel S. Ciener, Merritt Island, FL; the Honorable David A. Glant, Eighth Judicial Circuit, Gainesville, FL; Brian L. Tannebaum and Milton Hirsch, Miami, FL, on behalf of Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers — Miami Chapter; the Honorable Dale Ross, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Fort Lauderdale, FL; Arthur I. Jacobs of Jacobs and Associations, P.A., Fernandina Beach, FL, on behalf of the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association; John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, the Florida Bar, Tallahassee, FL, and George Euripedes Tragos, Past Chair, Criminal Procedure Rules Committee, Clearwater, FL, Responding with comments.
We have for consideration a number of proposed amendments to court rules and standard jury instructions. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.
In November 1999, the Jury Innovations Committee (Committee) of this Court's Judicial Management Council embarked on the most comprehensive review and thorough evaluation of Florida's jury system in the history of this state. The Committee, appointed by then Chief Justice Major B. Harding, consisted of twenty-two members, who were broadly representative of the many groups interested in and affected by Florida's civil and criminal jury system. Members included judges from the district, circuit, and county courts, a state attorney, a public defender, a clerk of court, a trial court administrator, a jury coordinator, a professor of criminal justice, members of The Florida Bar, a former state senator, and four former jurors, one from a high-profile case. This Committee identified and reviewed, among other things, the current use of juries, issues facing jury managers, accessibility issues, and proposals for jury improvement and innovations in other states.
The Committee began its task with the challenge not to adhere to the status quo but instead to advocate reform and innovations. After reviewing every aspect of our jury system, the Committee ultimately submitted a final report to this Court containing comprehensive recommendations for improving Florida's jury system. After considering the Committee's final report, the Court referred, either for implementation or for consideration and recommendation, a number of the Jury Innovations Committee's recommendations to the Civil Procedure Rules Committee, the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee, the Rules of Judicial Administration Committee, the Committee on Standard Jury Instructions—Criminal (Criminal Jury Instructions Committee), the Committee on Standard Jury Instructions—Civil (Civil Jury Instructions Committee), and the Code and Rules of Evidence Committee. In re Final Report of Jury Innovations Committee, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC03-041 (Oct.17, 2003). The Court later referred one of the Committee's recommendations to the Criminal Court Steering Committee for implementation. Specifically, the recommendations that were referred to one or more committees were as follows:
Standardized Juror Questionnaires
Pre-voir dire questionnaires are desirable and beneficial. Model questionnaires should be developed for both civil and criminal cases, enabling lawyers to have a preview of jurors' backgrounds. In-court voir dire can then be limited to case-specific inquiries (subject to reasonable time limitations imposed by the court) and any follow-up questions necessary to clarify written answers.
Jurors in both civil and criminal trials should be permitted to submit to the judge written questions to be asked of witnesses by the judge. The judge has the discretion to determine which jury questions are to be asked of witnesses. The Supreme Court should incorporate this right into the rules of civil and criminal procedure.
Jurors in both civil and criminal trials should be permitted to take notes and be advised they may do so. This right should be incorporated into the rules of civil and criminal procedure. Such rules would clarify that juror notes may be taken with them from the courtroom to the jury room. These notes may be shared with other jurors, but must be destroyed after the verdict is delivered. Appropriate jury instructions must be given.
Juror notebooks, which can serve a useful function (especially in civil cases) in lengthy and complex trials, should be specifically authorized by court rule.
American Bar Association (ABA) Standard 13: Juror Use should be adopted as a rule of judicial administration.1
Copies of the written jury instructions should be given to jurors for their use during deliberations.
Judges should be encouraged to deliver their final instructions to the jury before closing arguments.
Trial judges should be as responsive as possible and fully answer deliberating jurors' questions, consistent with applicable case law. The trial judge, when possible, should not ask jurors to rely on their "collective memory" when the judge is faced with questions from a deliberating jury, but rather respond more directly to their inquiries.
The Supreme Court should develop specific criteria for denying a read-back request. Such criteria could include relevant factors, such as whether the requested testimony is too lengthy or too vague. While the trial judge should have discretion in granting or denying the read-back of testimony, such a read-back should not be denied unless the court finds that one of the criteria, such as excessive length or vagueness, is met.
Trial judges in criminal and civil cases should be allowed to assist deliberating juries in reaching a verdict where an Allen charge has been given and the jury continues to report that they are deadlocked. Jurors should know exactly what can occur if they cannot reach a verdict, that is, what a mistrial actually means.
Judges should advise jurors of their rights regarding post-verdict discussions at the conclusion of a trial. This issue should become institutionalized through the judicial educational component of both the New Judges College and the Advanced College for Judicial Education. Experienced trial judges, acting as instructors at these respective colleges, can provide valuable insight and information to fellow judges regarding post-verdict discussions.
The various committees have now submitted their reports in response to these recommendations, most of which propose various amendments to court rules or standard jury instructions. The proposed amendments were published for comment, and a number of comments were received. Some of the Jury Innovations Committee's recommendations received adverse comments from various committees that submitted reports or those who commented on the proposed amendments.
Upon consideration of the reports submitted by the various committees, the comments filed in response to the publication of the proposed amendments, and the presentations of the parties during the two oral arguments heard in this case, we adopt the following amendments to court rules and authorize new and revised jury instructions in response to the Jury Innovations Committee's recommendations.
As noted, the Jury Innovations Committee recommended the development of juror questionnaires for use in both civil and criminal cases. The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure currently contain a standard juror questionnaire, form 1.984—Juror Voir Dire Questionnaire. We conclude that this form is adequate for use in civil cases, and we adopt new Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.9855—Juror Voir Dire Questionnaire, as proposed by the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee, for use in criminal cases. The use of these forms shall be at the discretion of the chief judge of each circuit court.
In response to the Jury Innovations Committee's recommendation with regard to questions by jurors, we adopt new civil and criminal rules and authorize the publication and use of new civil and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Std. Jury Instructions in Civil Cases -- Report No. 09-01
...standard civil jury instructions upon review of recommendations made by the Jury Innovation Committee. See In re Amends. to the Fla. Rules of Civil Proc., 967 So.2d 178 (Fla.2007).5 Finally, with regard to the reorganization and modification of the standard civil jury instructions, we decli......
-
Douglas v. State
...all criminal cases, the jury be provided with a written copy of all instructions given. See In re Amends. to the Fla. Rules of Civil Proc., Fla. Rules of Crim. Proc., 967 So.2d 178, 187 (Fla.2007). 19. Douglas contends that the trial court failed to issue a curative instruction explaining t......
-
Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Duignan, Case No. 2D15–5055
...cases to govern the discretion afforded a trial court when a jury requests a readback was adopted. In re Amendments to the Fla. Rules of Civil Procedure, 967 So.2d 178, 183 (Fla. 2007). Following Hazuri, the standard civil readback instruction, Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Civ.) 801.2, which cont......
-
In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases—Report No. 2014–05, SC14–1308.
...with envelopes to place the notes in for additional privacy.157 So.3d 1029CommentThis instruction was adopted in 2007 [SC05–1091][967 So.2d 178 ] and was amended in 2015.2.1(d) INSANITY—PSYCHOTROPIC MEDICATIONGive, if requested by defendant, at the beginning of trial and in the charge to th......