GENERAL RULE 9

RULE AMENDMENT COVER SHEET SUGGESTED AMENDMENT TO GR 41

1.       Proponent Organization: BJA Remote Proceedings Work Group Civil

2.       Spokesperson & Contact Info:

Judge Jim Rogers, Co-Chair BJA Remote Proceedings Work Group – Superior Court Level Email: Jim.Rogers@kingcounty.gov

Phone: 206-477-1597

3.       Purpose of Suggested Rule Amendment

This is a proposed new rule allowing jury selection by remote technology (this is not the rule formerly proposed by King County Superior).

The Superior Court Civil Group, including the Superior Court Judges Rules Committee, the Superior Court Criminal Group, and the Courts of Limited Jurisdiction Rules Committee all support this rule. The CLJ Rules Committee approval includes the following statement:

DMCJA Rules supports GR 41 but does have a concern with GR 41(d). We agree that that applications and filters that alter the juror’s appearance should not be

used. However, we are concerned that the language of the proposed rule would prohibit a juror from blurring their background. We feel that blurring one’s background would enhance juror privacy, decrease potential distractions, and have no real impact on the ability to perceive the juror. GR 41(d) is the only section that does not give the trial judge discretion to alter these requirements where circumstances warrant an exception.

(The DMCJA Rules Committee was informed that the WSSC will consider but not edit proposed rules.)

This rule allows jury selection by remote technology and provides safeguards.

The rule specifically requires that a juror without technology may not be excused and requires their inclusion in the voir dire process, by the juror appearing in person.

Section (d) states that “[t]he juror’s demeanor and appearance shall remain their own as if they were in-person and shall not be manipulated or altered.” This section prohibits the use of any applications on a computer that would affect credibility. The section goes on to say “[j]urors shall not use filters or virtual backgrounds or other programs or applications to alter

1

the appearance of the space in which they are physically located.” The use of filters has interfered with connectivity for some people coming in remotely.

The use of remote jury selection has largely, but not exclusively, been used in King County Superior Court where it originated as an emergency measure. However, as the process improved, where it now takes about the same amount of time as in-person jury selection (remote used to take longer), the advantages became obvious for criminal and civil cases.

The court can summon far more jurors to appear remotely than would fit in any courthouse in person. When more jurors are available, cases no longer wait days or weeks for enough jurors to begin voir dire. This method now gets cases to jury selection more quickly and as a result, defendants waiting in jail are heard more quickly, and lawyers for civil parties and local governments don’t wait, saving hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney fees (governments pay for prosecutors and public defenders).

The parties and the judge see the jurors’ faces far more closely than before on video and can question more effectively. Trial judges can assess GR 37 challenges more easily because jurors can be seen and heard more easily.

4.       Is Expedited Consideration Requested?

Expedited consideration is essential. The Supreme Court Emergency Order will be lifted soon and some form of amended or new rules addressing remote proceedings should be passed before the Order is lifted.

5.       Is a Public Hearing Recommended? No