State of Washington

Ethics Advisory Committee

STATE OF WASHINGTON
ETHICS OPINION 15-01

Issue

May a judge send jurors a letter thanking them for their service and asking for feedback related to their juror experience?  If so, may the judge include a business card with the judge’s direct chambers number for jurors to give verbal feedback to the judge as opposed to written feedback?

Answer

CJC 1.2 provides that judges shall act in a manner that: (1) promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary; and (2) avoids impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. CJC 2.8 (B) and(C) require a judge to be patient, dignified, and courteous to jurors, and not to commend or criticize jurors for their verdict. CJC 2.9 prohibits judges from initiating, permitting, or considering ex parte communications concerning a pending or impending matter (subject to limited exceptions not relevant here). A matter is “pending” within the meaning of the CJC if it has not reached a point of final disposition in an appellate process.

Judges may send jurors a letter thanking them for their service. Such communications can promote public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. In all communications with jurors, judges should remain courteous and avoid commenting or criticizing jurors for their verdict.

Judges should not solicit written or verbal feedback from jurors. Inviting juror feedback presents a considerable risk of engaging in ex parte communication with jurors while matters in the case are still pending in an appellate process. Even where that risk is not present, a judge communicating with a juror about that juror’s experience in a case raises an appearance of impropriety and would reduce the public’s confidence in the judge’s independence, integrity, or impartiality.

This opinion is not intended to contradict Comment 3 to CJC 2.8, which provides: “A judge who is not otherwise prohibited by law from doing so may meet with jurors who choose to remain after trial but should be careful not to discuss the merits of the case.” That comment deals with a situation not presented by the issue addressed here, which involves communications occurring after jurors have left the site of a trial.

Opinion 15-01

03/23/2015