Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 357-3 Filed 03/24/22 PageID.5016 Page 1 of 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 357-3 Filed 03/24/22 PageID.5017 Page 2 of 22
`
`Ninth Circuit
`Jury Trial Improvement Committee
`
`Second Report:
`Recommendations and
`Suggested Best Practices
`
`Adopted by the
`Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit
`on October 2006
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 357-3 Filed 03/24/22 PageID.5018 Page 3 of 22
`
`COMMITTEE MEMBERS
`
`Hon. Susan R. Bolton, Chair
`U.S. District Judge
`District of Arizona
`
`Hon. Richard C. Tallman
`U.S. Circuit Judge
`U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
`
`Hon. Virginia Phillips
`U.S. District Judge
`Central District of California
`
`
`
`Hon. Anthony Ishii
`U.S. District Judge
`Eastern District of California
`
`Hon. Elizabeth Laporte
`Hon. William Alsup
`U.S. Magistrate Judge
`U.S. District Judge
`Northern District of California Northern District of California
`
`Hon. Michael Brown
`Hon. Judith McConnell
`Retired Presiding Judge
`Presiding Justice
`California Court of Appeals
` Pima County, Arizona Superior Court
`
`Hon. John Hannah
`Superior Court Judge
`Maricopa County, Arizona
`
`Ms. Franny Forsman
`Federal Public Defender
`District of Nevada
`
`Mr. Brian Rekofke
`Ms. Debra Wong Yang
`U.S. Attorney
` Lawyer Representative
`Central District of California
`Eastern District of Washington
`
` Ms. Joanne Cook
`Ms. Cynthia Jensen
`Jury Administrator
`Chief Deputy Clerk
`District of Nevada
` District of Idaho
`
`Dr. Gregory B. Walters
`Circuit Executive
`Office of the Circuit Executive
`
`Committee Staff:
`
`Ms. Kira Gunther
`Dr. Robert E. Rucker
`Policy Analyst
`Assistant Circuit Executive
`Office of the Circuit Executive Office of the Circuit Executive
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 357-3 Filed 03/24/22 PageID.5019 Page 4 of 22
`
`JURY TRIAL IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE
`
`Second Report:
`Recommendations and Best Practices
`
`October 2006
`
`Goal A. Improve the Use of Jurors
`
`Recommendation I: Each district court should collect district-specific historical
`data that can be used to determine reliably how many jurors should be summoned
`for each trial.
`
`
`Goal B. Effectively Use Jurors’ Time
`
`Recommendation II: Communicate to jurors an estimate of the length of the trial in
`all cases and set time limits in civil cases.
`
`Recommendation III: Consider jurors’ needs when establishing and maintaining a
`jury schedule.
`
`Recommendation IV: Address non-jury matters when jurors are not in the
`courthouse.
`
`Recommendation V: Use pretrial conferences to maximize efficient use of jurors’
`time and streamline the trial.
`
`Recommendation VI: Include juror-related training for judges during the new
`judge orientations and recommend appropriate judicial training be provided by the
`Federal Judicial Center.
`
`Goal C. Improve Voir Dire
`
`Recommendation VII: Provide more and better information about the trial and the
`judicial process to the potential jurors at the beginning of voir dire.
`
`Recommendation VIII: After court conducted voir dire, attorneys should be
`permitted to conduct limited supplemental voir dire.
`
`Goal D. Improve Juror Satisfaction with the Voir Dire Process
`
`Recommendation IX: Consider including all jurors during the court’s voir dire
`questioning.
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 357-3 Filed 03/24/22 PageID.5020 Page 5 of 22
`
`
`
`Goal E. Improve Juror Comprehension
`
`Recommendation X: Permit juror note-taking, and provide individual juror trial
`books in appropriate cases.
`
`Recommendation XI: Permit written questions from jurors during civil trials.
`
`Recommendation XII: Provide all jurors with both preliminary and final jury
`instructions in written form.
`
`Recommendation XIII: Randomly select alternate juror(s) after closing arguments
`and instructions.
`
`Recommendation XIV: Encourage attorneys to use technology for the presentation
`of trial exhibits in order to improve juror comprehension.
`
`Recommendation XV: Permit juror discussion of evidence as civil trials progress.
`
`Goal F. Take Steps to Address Jurors’ Personal Concerns Arising from Jury Service
`
`Recommendation XVI: Incorporate ways to protect juror privacy.
`
`Recommendation XVII: Address jurors’ communication needs.
`
`Recommendation XVIII: Explain to jurors their rights regarding post-trial
`discussion.
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 357-3 Filed 03/24/22 PageID.5021 Page 6 of 22
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder established the Ninth Circuit’s Jury Trial Improvement
`Committee to recommend ways to improve juror satisfaction, comprehension and utilization.
`The committee distributed its first set of recommendations and best practices in April 2004. The
`first report generally focused on improving jurors’ experience prior to physically coming to the
`courthouse.
`
`The committee has continued to pursue Chief Judge Schroeder's directions and developed
`this second set of recommendations and suggested best practices for improving courtroom
`procedures that will result in better jury trials and improved experiences for our jurors. When
`implemented, the committee expects these recommendations will maximize the efficient use of
`juror time at the courthouse and improve juror experience by facilitating comprehension during
`the trial.
`
`It should be noted that the following recommendations are based in part upon the
`responses to a jury questionnaire that was specifically designed and administered for our
`committee. More than 7,000 citizens who were summoned for jury duty in the district courts of
`the Ninth Circuit responded to the questionnaire. Our committee surveyed a variety of citizens:
`those who arrived at the courthouse but did not participate in voir dire, those who participated in
`voir dire and were released, and those who participated in a jury trial. In this report, you will find
`quotes from these citizens and statistical summaries of their answers to our survey questions. The
`committee intends to have a website created so that interested parties may access the full survey
`results.
`
`We would be remiss if we did not point out that the current jury system works well. It is
`something about which we have every right to be proud, and most citizens recognize the
`importance of jury service as a civic duty. Numerous comments from jurors confirm these
`conclusions. Seventy-nine percent of those answering our questionnaire responded that they
`believed their jury service was an important contribution to the community, and 89 percent of
`those who actually served on a jury agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. Eighty-four
`percent of those serving on a jury said it was a positive experience, while only five percent of
`those serving did not agree that it was a positive experience.1
`
` A fairly impressive 63 percent of all those who responded to our questionnaire said their
`xperience was positive.
`
`1 e
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 357-3 Filed 03/24/22 PageID.5022 Page 7 of 22
`
`“My jury experience now and in the past has been wonderful. I appreciate the effort to
`accommodate my schedule and all involved were so professional. Thank you so much
`for your efforts.”
`
`“A great learning experience. Extremely comfortable surroundings. Delightful
`personnel at all levels.”
`
`
`However, the committee believes, and as confirmed by the jurors’ responses to our
`questionnaires, there is room for improving juror experience in the fifteen districts comprising
`our circuit’s federal courts. This need can be seen in the responses to several different questions,
`particularly when 12 percent of those surveyed said they would try to avoid jury service in the
`future.
`
`Goal A. Improve the Use of Jurors
`
`Recommendation I: Each district court should collect district-specific historical data
`that can be used to determine reliably how many jurors should be summoned for
`each trial.
`
`
`
`It is costly and burdensome to summon far more prospective jurors than will actually be
`needed. Districts should minimize this problem by summoning only the number of prospective
`jurors needed to provide sufficient jurors for the trial(s) scheduled to begin on a specific day.
`The determination of a sufficient number of jurors needed can be reliably grounded on the
`courts’ past experiences. Data can provide the courts with a high degree of predictability in
`ascertaining an appropriate number that should provide sufficient jurors to conduct a trial.
`Currently, all district courts are collecting these data and all that needs to be done is analysis and
`implementation.
`
`The public’s primary contact with the federal courts is through jury service. It wastes the
`time and resources of both the court and the public to summon an excessive number of people,
`have them wait for hours in the jury assembly room, and then dismiss them without any
`participation in the process.
`
`During 2005, more than 18,700 prospective jurors appeared at federal courthouses in the
`Ninth Circuit who did not participate in a jury trial or even take part in voir dire. The Judicial
`Conference of the United States has set a goal that each circuit should have no more than 30
`percent of prospective jurors appearing at federal courthouses without participating in voir dire or
`a jury trial.
`
`If the district courts in the Ninth Circuit had reached the Judicial Conference's goal in
`2005, approximately 4,000 fewer jurors would have appeared at federal courthouses only to be
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 357-3 Filed 03/24/22 PageID.5023 Page 8 of 22
`
`dismissed without any participation in the process.
`
`“Serving on a jury would be a great service and honor, but sitting in a room for 8 ½
`hours until 4:14 pm is a waste of time.”
`
`“I think that there were too many potential jurors to choose from - approximately 20
`of us never made it past the back benches to answer even one question. Why are so
`many necessary to select only 13 - when so many didn't respond to anything they just
`waited/listened?”
`
`There are two main reasons for this problem. First, judges and jury administrators have
`overestimated the number of potential jurors needed out of concern that the jury pool will be
`exhausted. Second, the court is often notified of a resolution on the morning of the jury
`selection, which may also be the first scheduled day of the trial. Active case management can
`result in earlier notification to the courts of a resolution and, thus, minimize inconvenience to
`jurors who can be notified in time that they do not need to appear.
`
`Efforts to restrict the number of people summoned to only those who are needed will help
`each to have a better jury experience. Eighty-four percent of those who served on a jury said that
`their jury service was personally worthwhile. This number dropped to approximately half for
`those who did not serve on a jury.
`
`The district courts in the Ninth Circuit have experienced professionals who serve as their
`jury administrators. These jury administrators often have long institutional memories and access
`to the court’s jury records, and they can greatly assist the judges in determining an appropriate
`number of citizens to be summoned for a particular trial.
`
`Courts should use the services of the jury administrator to work in conjunction with the
`court staff to develop accurate estimates of the number of potential jurors who may need to be
`summoned for particular types of cases. These estimates can be generated by employing the
`actual number of jurors historically used by either a district or a specific judge. Some of the
`district judges in the Ninth Circuit have already successfully used these estimates as resources to
`more efficiently summon potential jurors.
`
`Best Practices
`
`The committee recommends that districts consider beginning several trials on the same
`day, pooling jurors, and staggering trial start times in order to reduce the number of people who
`are unnecessarily called for jury duty.
`
`The committee recommends that the judges hold a final pretrial conference no more than
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 357-3 Filed 03/24/22 PageID.5024 Page 9 of 22
`
`one to two weeks before the trial is scheduled to begin and require the attorneys to notify the
`court two court days, at the latest, before the trial is scheduled to start if a resolution has been
`reached. In civil cases, district court local rules should authorize imposition of monetary
`sanctions for failure to comply. The amount of sanctions can be based on required payment of
`the prospective jurors summoned for that trial.
`
` Active case management can lessen the inconvenience to the citizens who were
`summoned, save taxpayers’ money, and improve jury utilization. Encouraging attorneys to give
`the court notice of a resolution of at least two working days will give the jury administrator time
`to notify the potential jurors that they will not need to report for jury duty. In some courthouses,
`if the judge has not been notified of a potential resolution in a timely manner the clerk is
`instructed to call the attorneys and confirm whether a resolution has been reached.
`
`Upon receiving news of a resolution, the judge should promptly inform the jury
`administrator, and, in turn, the jury administrator should inform jurors that they are no longer
`needed. If appropriate, the courts can utilize the internet and jurors’ email addresses as tools to
`update jurors about their duties.
`
`“I had to drive 5 hours to serve therefore I must come the day before the trial starts. Then I
`have to call again after 5:00 p.m. the night before the trial to see if I still need to report.
`Fortunately, I still did have to report. If not, I really would have been ticked off and if I
`understand this: I also would not get money for mileage and hotel room. Is this right and
`fair??”
`
`“Short notice that I had to serve the next morning didn't allow me to cancel my appt with
`24 hours notice resulting in a $45 charge”
`
`“Having to appear the morning after an evening call to service is ridiculous! How can you
`plan anything that quickly? I had to cancel a job interview. Being on-call for a month is
`not acceptable. Please find another system. I was not even called to a court room and was
`released at 9:30 AM. Again unacceptable.”
`
`On the occasions when a panel is summoned and the case resolves that day, the judge
`should call the panel into the courtroom and explain that their presence was essential to settling
`the case. This will only take a few minutes of the judge’s time and make the panel feel that their
`attendance was truly important.
`
`In light of the jury utilization goals established by the Judicial Conference of the United
`States, the committee believes that each district should keep track of its jury utilization numbers
`for the district as a whole and for individual judges in the district. The data on utilization rates
`should be provided to each judge for review.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 357-3 Filed 03/24/22 PageID.5025 Page 10 of 22
`
`Goal B. Effectively Use Jurors’ Time
`
`Recommendation II: Communicate to jurors an estimate of the length of the trial in
`all cases and set time limits in civil cases.
`
`The committee recommends that in every jury trial, civil or criminal, the judge should
`consult with counsel and determine an estimated length for that specific trial. In a civil case, the
`court should set time limits. In a criminal case, the court should set time lines for the length of
`the trial, acknowledging that time lines in criminal cases need to be flexible.
`
`Following the court’s determination, the court should always inform jurors about the
`projected length of the trial. This information will help jurors organize their lives around the trial
`and make accommodations for spouses, children, other dependents, and work-related matters. Of
`our surveyed jurors, 98 percent reported that the courts gave the jurors an estimate of how long
`the trial would last. Eighty-five percent of surveyed jurors reported the court’s estimated length
`of trial was accurate.
`
`Best Practices
`
`It is the judge’s responsibility to provide active case management and monitor each phase
`of the trial. To the extent possible, the judge should keep the case moving and ensure the trial is
`adhering to predetermined time lines. The judge should continually meet with attorneys
`throughout the course of the trial to discuss case progress. If time lines are adjusted, the jury
`should be informed as soon as possible.
`
`Recommendation III: Consider jurors’ needs when establishing and maintaining a
`jury schedule.
`
`In many courthouses, jurors are required to arrive by 8:00 a.m. or 8:30 a.m. with the trial
`often not beginning until 9:00 a.m. Jurors often spend their time waiting in the jury room while
`the judge works on motions or other matters that have been raised by the attorneys. Commonly,
`a trial includes two 15-20 minute breaks, one in the morning and one in the afternoon. The jurors
`are usually given a lunch break of 1 ½ hours. The trial day normally ends around 4:00 p.m. or
`4:30 p.m. Absent other recesses or interruptions, most trial days involve about 5 ½ to 6 hours of
`evidence taking.
`
`The committee recommends that judges consider alternative trial schedules to meet the
`needs of the jury. Some judges may choose to ask a jury about their specific needs when
`deciding on a schedule.
`
`Once a schedule has been established, it is important to closely adhere to the schedule so
`jurors can plan accordingly. Extensive breaks and extending beyond the normal trial day can add
`inconvenience to jurors and make it difficult for jurors to manage their other obligations.
`Additionally, it is unfair for jurors to be required to report to the courthouse on time only to wait
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 357-3 Filed 03/24/22 PageID.5026 Page 11 of 22
`
`for the trial to begin.
`
`Best Practices
`
`Given the sacrifices that jury service may exact for many jurors, the committee
`recommends that judges consider the needs of jurors when deciding on the trial schedule. Some
`jurors have indicated that they prefer compressed schedules that begin earlier in the day in order
`to coordinate work or family obligations. In districts where jurors travel long distances for jury
`service, holding the trial over longer, and therefore fewer days, might be preferable.
`
`The committee recognizes that in some situations alternative trial schedules can be
`beneficial for the jurors, the attorneys, and the judge. Some judges in the Ninth Circuit’s district
`courts have successfully gone to “compressed jury trial schedules.” One court schedules a 7:30
`a.m. start time for the lawyers and a 7:45 a.m. report time for the jurors. Court always starts
`promptly with the taking of evidence by 8:00 a.m. The judge provides for two mini breaks, but
`no lunch break, and ends the trial day by 1:00 p.m. Judges have reported that they get as much or
`more accomplished with the compressed schedule as the regularly scheduled trial day, and that
`attorneys are usually better prepared.
`
`When choosing a trial schedule, it is optimal to include at least five hours of trial time
`each day. Researchers Dale Anne Sipes and Mary Elsner Oram examined the average trial day
`and its relationship to the overall length of the trial. Their data “led to the conclusion that
`consecutive and longer trial days lead to the ability to conduct trials in fewer total hours.” 2
`
`It is the judge’s responsibility to adhere as closely as possible to the established schedule
`to lessen the inconvenience on jurors. Ten percent of jurors reported staying in court to work past
`the scheduled ending time, and 19 percent stated there were unscheduled breaks during the trial.
`Additionally, 24 percent of jurors reported trial breaks extended past the scheduled time. To the
`extent possible, maintaining a preset trial schedule allows jurors to plan for employment and care
`giving responsibilities.
`
`“Don’t tell people they need to be in the jury room by 8:00 a.m. when the door doesn’t
`even open until 8:00. I spent 20 to 30 minutes freezing outside because I wanted to be on
`time-we don’t even start the process until 9:00 a.m.”
`
`Recommendation IV: Address non-jury matters when jurors are not in the
`courthouse.
`
` Dale Anne Sipes & Mary Elsner Oram, On Trial: The Length of Civil and Criminal
`2
`Trials, 81 (National Center for State Courts 1988).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 357-3 Filed 03/24/22 PageID.5027 Page 12 of 22
`
`The committee recommends that in order to respect jurors’ time at the courthouse, judges
`address non-jury matters during those times when the jury’s presence is not required in the
`courthouse. Many proceedings, such as the pre-admission of exhibits or other motions, should
`be handled in this manner.
`
`Best Practices
`
`Some judges regularly make themselves available to counsel before and/or after the trial
`day. This arrangement provides time for the judge to meet with the attorneys and address any
`matters that need attending outside of the jurors’ presence. Judges should inform lawyers that
`this time is allocated to address non-juror related matters.
`
`Judges should require attorneys to address those issues for which the jurors’ presence is
`not necessary outside the hours of jury service. During trial, sidebars should be discouraged in
`order to reduce the amount of time jurors are present but not engaged in hearing evidence. Issues
`often raised during sidebars can usually be resolved during pretrial conference, before the jury
`arrives, or after they have left for the day. Judges are encouraged to have attorneys be in the
`courtroom at least 30 minutes before the trial is scheduled to begin or have attorneys remain after
`the trial day has finished. If the judge meets with attorneys before the trial day begins, the judge
`should be mindful of time and start the trial promptly at the scheduled start time so jurors are not
`kept waiting.
`
`Recommendation V: Use pretrial conferences to maximize efficient use of jurors’
`time and streamline the trial.
`
`Judges are encouraged to use pretrial conferences to streamline the jury trial. Pretrial
`conferences are an effective tool to minimize the inefficient use of jurors’ time. The committee
`believes that pretrial conferences can be beneficial in resolving issues outside of the jurors’
`presence. These conferences should be used to resolve motions in limine and other expected
`evidentiary issues, arrange for pre-marking exhibits, establish reasonable time limits, and review
`attorney-submitted jury instructions. Some judges use the pretrial conference to settle
`preliminary jury instructions.
`
`Recommendation VI: Include juror-related training for judges during the new
`judge orientations and recommend appropriate judicial training be provided by the
`Federal Judicial Center.
`
`The committee believes that new judges would greatly benefit from training concerning
`juror-related issues such as working with the jury administrator to select an appropriate number
`of potential jurors to be summoned, voir dire, use of alternative trial schedules, techniques for
`monitoring time, minimizing sidebars, and other topics designed to enhance jurors’ convenience
`and comprehension.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 357-3 Filed 03/24/22 PageID.5028 Page 13 of 22
`
`Goal C. Improve Voir Dire
`
`Recommendation VII: Provide more and better information about the trial and the
`judicial process to the potential jurors at the beginning of voir dire.
`
`The committee believes that if potential jurors are given as much information about the
`case as possible, they will better understand the case, and therefore will be better able to respond
`during the voir dire process. If jurors are better informed about the case, they are better able to
`identify personal biases that they would not have considered otherwise.
`
`Mini-Openings.
`
`In civil cases, judges should consider offering attorneys the opportunity prior to voir dire
`to make mini-openings in which each attorney presents a succinct statement of facts. Mini-
`openings can enhance the ability of potential jurors to respond fully to voir dire. According to
`our surveys, 89% of those who went through voir dire said that only the judge described the case
`to them.
`
`Mini-openings may also be employed in some criminal cases. The committee does not
`believe that mini-openings are appropriate in cases with pro se litigants.
`
`Case-Specific Questionnaires.
`
`In cases where the jurors’ personal experiences might have a significant impact on their
`ability to be fair, such as those involving sexual assault, or child pornography, focused
`questionnaires may be useful. Such questionnaires can be sent with the jury summons to address
`issues that potential jurors might feel uncomfortable answering in open court. When using such
`questionnaires, consider carefully the possibility that such information could be subject to public
`disclosure, and manage juror privacy expectations accordingly.
`
`Best Practices
`
`The committee discourages the use of generic questionnaires for every trial because they
`do not offer sufficient benefits to justify the imposition on the jurors, the additional expenditure
`of staff time, and extra operational costs. However, it can be beneficial to use questionnaires that
`will assist in pre-screening potential jurors when the case is anticipated to be unusually long.
`
`Recommendation VIII: After court-conducted voir dire, attorneys should be
`permitted to conduct supplemental voir dire.
`
`Most courts require attorneys to submit a list of proposed voir dire questions prior to the
`trial so that the judge can use them in voir dire. Nevertheless, the committee believes that in
`addition to judge-conducted voir dire, jurors may benefit if judges permit attorney-conducted voir
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 357-3 Filed 03/24/22 PageID.5029 Page 14 of 22
`
`dire. Attorneys have an increased familiarity with the facts of the case and may become aware of
`important questions that should be asked. Attorney-conducted voir dire should be allowed for a
`predetermined, limited time or for clearly defined and explained purposes. 3
`
`The committee believes that the lawyers have a better understanding of the facts of the
`case and can assist in focusing voir dire on identifying potential biases and in necessary follow-
`up to prior open-ended responses that might lead to identifying bias.
`
`Attorney conducted voir dire should come after the judge’s voir dire and be supplemental
`and not duplicative. The limited attorney voir dire should be directed to follow up on questions
`asked by the judge or any trial-related issues not covered by the judge’s voir dire. However,
`attorneys should be instructed that they are not to use their limited voir dire merely to repeat
`questions already asked by the judge. Attorneys may ask questions to expand on issues
`previously raised.
`
`One potential hazard of allowing attorney-conducted voir dire is that attorneys may
`attempt to use their questioning to precondition the jury to their respective cases. In order to
`discourage misuse of attorney voir dire, judges are encouraged to set clear guidelines about what
`kind of questions will be permitted.
`
`In order to improve the quality of voir dire, the committee recommends that both judges
`and attorneys receive voir dire training. The committee’s survey of the Ninth Circuit district and
`magistrate judges revealed that the judges do not believe that attorneys do a good job of
`conducting voir dire. On the other hand, attorneys complain that judges frequently do not
`address issues that should be covered during voir dire and that judges’ questions do not elicit
`sufficient information. It is the committee’s belief that both contentions have merit and that an
`educational component would be beneficial for both judges and lawyers.
`
`Best Practices
`
`Judges should avoid leading questions designed to prompt jurors to say that they can or
`cannot be fair. Such questions defeat the purpose of supplemental attorney voir dire, which is to
`elicit candid responses and thereby increase the effectiveness of voir dire.
`
`
`
`3
`
` Only 29 percent of jurors reported they were asked questions by the attorneys.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 357-3 Filed 03/24/22 PageID.5030 Page 15 of 22
`
`Goal D. Improve Juror Satisfaction with the Voir Dire Process
`
`Recommendation IX: Consider including all jurors during the Court’s voir dire
`questioning.
`
`The committee recommends that, when appropriate, judges consider including all
`prospective jurors in the voir dire process. The committee believes that including all members of
`the jury pool will improve both the jurors’ attentiveness and their satisfaction with the process.
`Questioning all jurors can also help both sides gather more information about all potential jurors.
`While time constraints are important to consider, the committee believes that the potential jurors
`will be more satisfied if all of them are included in the questioning process.
`
`Best Practices
`
`Judges should consider ways to explain why some potential jurors may be challenged or
`excused during the voir dire process, so that those who are excused will be less likely to have
`negative feelings about the juror selection process.
`
`Goal E: Improve Juror Comprehension
`
`Recommendation X: Permit juror note-taking, and provide individual juror trial
`books in appropriate cases.
`
`In order to enhance juror comprehension and memory, the committee recommends that
`the court always provide a means for juror note-taking. There are a variety of ways to manage
`the confidentiality of these notes in order to protect against their misuse. The court can require
`that jurors not remove their notes from the courthouse and order that notes be destroyed after the
`trial.
`
`In appropriate trials, juror trial books should be provided. Trial books can assist juror
`note-taking and enhance the juror’s memory. Trial books should include the preliminary jury
`instructions. Readily available copies of the key exhibits can result in fewer questions from the
`jury once they have begun deliberations. When dealing with technical or complicated concepts,
`it may prove beneficial to include a glossary in the notebooks to enhance juror recall of
`testimony, increase comprehension, and reduce confusion during deliberation. The glossary can
`be prepared jointly by the trial attorneys.
`
`The committee recognizes that technology is rapidly advancing, and many jurors are
`incorporating these changes into their lifestyles so jurors may wish to use laptops or other
`electronic devices to take notes. The committee currently believes that if the judge should
`choose to permit electronic devices for note-taking, the devices should be provided by the court.
`
`Given the current security concerns associated with jurors’ use of electronic devices, the
`committee recommends that the Ninth Circuit’s Information Technology Committee develop a
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 357-3 Filed 03/24/22 PageID.5031 Page 16 of 22
`
`policy that addresses these issues regarding use of electronic devices by jurors and that the policy
`be regularly updated as the technology changes.
`
`Best Practices
`
`The committee believes that in cases where juror trial books are utilized, jurors should be
`provided with identical books containing pertinent information. The notebooks might contain
`such items as: the preliminary instructions, information on trial procedures with instructions
`about the court’s note-taking policy and its policy about asking questions, selected exhibits that
`have been admitted by the court, a chart of the courtroom so that jurors will know who the
`different participants are (this is in addition to a recommended introduction by the judge of
`courtroom staff and the attorneys), a glossary explaining unfamiliar legal terms created in
`consultation with attorneys, photographs of witnesses as an aid to memory, and curriculum vitae
`of expert witnesses.
`
`Parties may provide supplemental materials that can be included in the notebooks during
`the course of the trial. These notebooks should be available to the jurors during their
`deliberations. The cour