Jury Trial Overview

Question 1

Jury Trial Overview

Answer 1

1. The Jury is Impaneled. The jury panel in a particular case is drawn from a larger pool of potential jurors (referred to as the venire) called to the court on the day of trial.
   * The panel is selected through a process called voir dire (translation: to speak the truth), through which potential jurors are questioned by the judge and/or the attorneys in an effort to determine whether they can be fair. The U.S. Constitution guarantees litigants the right to an impartial jury.
2. Opening jury instructions. Once the jury is impaneled, the judge gives introductory instructions, explaining how the trial will be conducted, introducing the parties and attorneys, telling jury what to expect, what it means when an attorney objects and judge rules on it, etc.
3. Opening Statements. After introductory instructions, the parties begin to present their cases. The plaintiff always presents her case first, and it begins with an “opening statement”, which is a summary of what the plaintiff’s attorney expects the evidence to show. The defendant’s attorney may give his opening statement immediately after the plaintiff’s opening statement, or he may wait until after the plaintiff has presented her case and give his opening statement at the beginning of the defendant’s case in chief.
4. Plaintiff’s Case. After opening statements have been given, the plaintiff’s attorney will call her witnesses, conducting a direct examination of each and introducing documentary or other evidence through them. The defendant’s attorney will cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses during this part of the case, after the plaintiff’s attorney completes each direct examination.
5. Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (FRCP 50(a)). After the plaintiff rests, the defendant may move for judgment as a matter of law (also known as directed verdict), seeking dismissal of all or part of the plaintiff’s case. The standard for directed verdict is the same as the standard for summary judgment (see discussion below).
6. Defendant’s Case. If the motion for judgment as a matter of law is not granted, or if the defendant did not make one, then the defendant will now present his case in chief, in the same manner that plaintiff did in Step #4, above.
   * Note that if the defendant’s attorney chose not to make his opening statement immediately after the plaintiff’s opening statement, then he will make it now, before calling his witnesses.
7. Rebuttal. After the defendant rests, each party has opportunity to call rebuttal witnesses, for the purpose of rebutting something presented by the opposing party during his or her case in chief. Plaintiff will offer any rebuttal witnesses first, to rebut the defendant’s case, and if she does so, then the defendant may follow up with rebuttal witnesses to rebut the testimony of the plaintiff’s rebuttal witnesses.
8. Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (FRCP 50(a). Once both parties have rested, there is an opportunity for either party to move for judgment as a matter of law (directed verdict motion), seeking judgment with respect to all or part of the opposing party’s case.
9. Closing Arguments. If directed verdict motions are not made, or not granted, then the parties make their closing arguments to the jury, basically summarizing the testimony and telling the jury why it should find for them.
10. Closing Jury Instructions. The judge will now instruct the jury on the substance of the law that governs the claims and defenses asserted by the parties, and then send the jurors to the deliberation room to hopefully reach a verdict in the case.
11. Verdict is Rendered.
12. Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (FRCP 50(b)), Motion for New Trial (FRCP 59), or Appeal. After an adverse verdict, the trial loser may again move for judgment as a matter of law, now pursuant to Rule 50(b) (also called judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or “j.n.o.v.”), arguing that the evidence presented at trial was so one-sided in his favor that the judge should enter a judgment for him, contrary to the jury’s verdict. Or the trial loser may move for a new trial, pursuant to FRCP 59.

Failing either of those two strategies, the trial loser could appeal the jury’s verdict and the judgment entered thereon, seeking reversal by the appellate court.

Question 2

Rules Governing the Jury in Federal Court Civil Cases

Answer 2

• FRCP 48: The number of jurors on a jury panel must be not fewer than six nor more than 12. Verdicts must be unanimous unless the parties agree otherwise.
• 28 USC 1861: Juries are to be “selected at random from a fair cross section of the community” in the district or division within which court sits.
• The venire (i.e., the jury pool) must be pulled from a “primary source” (voter registrations) and a secondary source (could be tax rolls, social security numbers, driver’s license). 28 USC Sec 1863(b)(2).
• 28 USC 1862: No one can be excluded from jury service on basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or economic status.
• This statute applies to the assembly of the jury pool, or venire, and not necessarily to the selection of the jury panel (i.e., the 6-12 people selected as jurors in a given case). See the discussion of “peremptory challenge”, below.

Question 3

28 USC 1865: Juror Qualifications

Answer 3

• Must be US citizen
• Must be at least 18 years old
• Must have resided in the district for at least one year
• Must meet minimum literacy requirements and be fluent in English
• Must be mentally and physically capable of service
• Must be free of a pending charge or past convictions of crimes punishable by imprisonment for more than one year where civil rights have not been fully restored.

Question 4

Impaneling the Jury – Challenges for Cause and the Peremptory Challenge

Answer 4

In a civil case, the parties are entitled to an impartial jury. During jury selection, members of the jury pool (the venire) are questioned by the judge and/or parties in order for the parties to discern if the potential jurors can be impartial, or if they might have bias towards one party or the other. The questioning process is called “voir dire”.

Question 5

FRCP 47 governs voir dire in civil cases filed in federal court.

Answer 5

• The rule provides that the court may permit the parties or their attorneys to conduct the examination of the prospective jurors, or it may itself conduct the examination.
• If the judge conducts the examination himself, he must allow the parties or their attorneys to ask some of the questions, or he must himself submit questions offered by the parties or their attorneys, as he deems proper.
• The court may excuse a juror for good cause – such as sickness or family emergency.
• After each round of questioning, the parties/attorneys are given the right to exercises “peremptory challenges” and “challenges for cause.”

Question 6

The parties have unlimited challenges for cause.

Answer 6

• A “challenge for cause” is exercised when the party or attorney seeks to excuse a prospective juror from the jury panel because he believes the prospective juror is biased and cannot be fair.
• The judge decides whether or not cause exists to excuse the juror.

Question 7

The parties have three peremptory challenges in federal civil cases

Answer 7

• With limited exception, the “peremptory challenge” allows a party or attorney to excuse a prospective juror without giving a reason.
• It allows a lawyer to act on hunches. The lawyer may not be able to establish that a prospective juror is biased, but he may have a gut feel that this person would not be sympathetic towards his client’s case. In such a circumstance, the lawyer could use a peremptory challenge to excuse the prospective juror from the panel.
• BUT NOTE:Peremptory challenges based on race, gender, and ethnic origin are prohibited, based on the Supreme Court case Batson v Kentucky and its progeny.
• If an attorney or party believes that the other party is exercising peremptory challenges in violation of Batson and its progeny, then she can make a “Batson challenge”.
• The attorney must raise the issue and make a prima facie showing of intentional discrimination. Since a party generally does not need to provide a reason for exercising a peremptory challenge, there is likely to be little evidence of a Batson violation, other than the sheer number of challenges made to excuse African-American jurors, or female jurors, or the like.
• If the judge determines that a prima facie case of discrimination has been made, he will require the accused party to explain the basis for the peremptory challenge. The explanation need not rise to the level of a “for cause” challenge, but it must show that the use of the allegedly offending peremptory challenge is based on a juror characteristic other than the protected characteristic (e.g., race, gender).

Question 8

The “Black Box” Nature of Jury Deliberations

Answer 8

It is important to note that there are different requirements for judge and jury in revealing their deliberative process.

• Judges are required to put findings of fact and conclusions of law into a written opinion, or into the court record, pursuant to FRCP 52(c).
• Unlike the judge, the jury is not required to explain the rationale for its determinations (except to the limited extent that might be required by a special verdict form or general verdict with answers to written questions, per FRCP 49). A jury’s deliberative process is screened from scrutiny.

Question 9

Given this protection of the jury’s deliberative process, how does the system protect litigants from jury mistakes or improper decision-making in the jury room?

Answer 9

• Protections can found in a number of procedural devices, all of which are designed to ensure that judgments will be based only on rational inferences that could be drawn by a reasonable person from the evidence presented at trial.
• Summary judgment is one such device, as it serves to take issues away from the jury that can have only one outcome based on the evidence. Evidentiary rules are another – they are designed to make sure that the jury is only provided with reliable, relevant evidence. Jury instructions serve to guide the jury decision-making process. And finally, motions for judgment as a matter of law ensure that juries decide only cases that could rationally come out in favor of either party.

Question 10

FRCP 50: Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law

Answer 10

• Rule 50 addresses motions that can be raised at two distinct points in the trial process – during trial (FRCP 50(a)), and after trial (FRCP 50(b)).
• The “motion for judgment as matter of law” seeks to do the same thing as a summary judgment motion (which can only be sought before trial) – it asks the judge (rather than the jury) to decide all or part of the case because the issues are capable of only one outcome, based on the law and the undisputed evidence.

The standard for granting a motion for judgment as a matter of law is the exact same standard that applies for granting a motion for summary judgment.

• While the language of Rules 56 and 50 defining the standard for granting these motions is not the same, it is nevertheless interpreted in the same way.
• Pursuant to Rule 50, a motion for judgment as a matter of law should be granted where court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the nonmoving party.
• In other words, the motion should be granted where the evidence is so one-sided that no reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party.
• Similar to the SJ motion, court must view all evidence in light most favorable to the non-moving party, and can’t make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence.
• The court must draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of the non-moving party.
• Note that Rule 50 applies only to jury cases. In bench trials, a similar motion may be brought under FRCP 52(c).

Question 11

FRCP 50(a): Also known as a motion for “directed verdict”

Answer 11

• A “directed verdict” motion may be made at any point during the trial process, but the court may not grant such a motion unless the nonmoving party has been fully heard on the issues that are the subject of the motion.
• As a practical matter, this means that a defendant generally can’t make the motion against the plaintiff until after plaintiff has finished presenting her case, and a plaintiff can’t make the motion against the defendant until the defendant has finished presenting his case.
• Note that the rule does not preclude a party from making multiple motions for judgment as a matter of law during a trial.
• A directed verdict can also be granted sua sponte by the judge, but this rarely happens.

Question 12

FRCP 50(b): Also known as a motion for “judgment notwithstanding the verdict” or “J.N.O.V.”

Answer 12

• This motion may be filed after the jury has rendered its verdict. J.N.O.V. is an abbreviation for the Latin term, “judgment non obstante veredicto”.
• Under this rule, the court can enter a judgment that is inconsistent with the jury’s verdict if it determines that the verdict was not supported by the evidence.
• The standard for granting a j.n.o.v. motion under Rule 50(b) is identical to the standard for granting a directed verdict motion under Rule 50(a) – i.e., “no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for the nonmoving party.”
• Again, the exact same standard that one would apply to a SJ motion applies – you are essentially saying, “When viewing all the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, no reasonable jury could come out the way THIS jury just did.”
• There is a prerequisite for making a FRCP 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law after trial - one must have filed a FRCP (a) motion for judgment as a matter of law (i.e., a “directed verdict” motion) during trial on the exact same grounds, and it was denied.
• FRCP 50(b) refers to the motion it describes as a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law … because you are essentially renewing the same motion that you had made earlier under FRCP 50(a) during trial.
• Note: A trial judge’s denial of a FRCP 50(a) directed verdict motion cannot be appealed after trial unless the party makes a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under FRCP 50(b) – in other words, a JNOV motion – after trial.