RULES OF COURT
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENTS TO GR 15, NEW GR 28, CR 47, CrR 6.8, CRLJ 38, CrRLJ 6.8, CR 43, CRLJ 43, CR 51, CrR 6.15, CRLJ 51 AND CrRLJ 6.15 | )))) ) |
ORDER NO. 25700-A-730 |
Now, therefore, it is hereby
ORDERED:
(a) That pursuant to the provisions of GR 9(f), the proposed amendments as attached hereto are to be published for comment in the Washington Reports, Washington Register, Washington State Bar Association and Office of the Administrator for the Court's websites expeditiously.
(b) The purpose statement as required by GR 9(d), is published solely for the information of the Bench, Bar and other interested parties.
(c) Comments are to be submitted to the Clerk of the Supreme Court by either U.S. Mail or Internet E-Mail by no later than 90 days from the date published in the Washington Reports. Comments may be sent to the following addresses: P.O. Box 40929, Olympia, Washington 98504-0929, or Lisa.Bausch@courts.wa.gov. Comments submitted by e-mail message must be limited to 1500 words.
DATED at Olympia, Washington this 6th day of March 2002.
Gerry L. Alexander
Chief Justice
GR 9(d) Cover Sheet |
Concerning Access to Juror Information
Submitted by the Washington State Jury Commission,
a subcommittee of the Board for Judicial Administration
(1) Background: Just before the Washington State Jury
Commission completed its work, the Supreme Court amended GR 15.
Language was added in section (j) establishing a presumption of
privacy for juror information. Section (j) also includes a
provision that allows the parties and their attorneys to petition
the court for access to juror information after the conclusion of
a trial. The Commission recommended that GR 15 be further
amended to address two additional issues. First, the process for
petitioning the court for access to juror information should be
expanded to apply to all members of the public. Second, GR 15
does not address master jury source list records. GR 15(a)
states in part, "The clerk shall maintain all documents and
materials filed with the court, and shall make available for
public examination all files, cases, records, documents or
materials which have not been ordered destroyed or sealed."
Thus, court clerks currently permit access to the master jury
source list records containing potential jurors' names and
addresses. The situation could arise where access to the address
information for jurors in a particular trial has been restricted
by the court. Yet, currently, it would be possible to obtain the
master jury source list from the clerk's office containing those
jurors' addresses.
(2) Purpose: The proposed amendment to section (j) seeks to give the public the same mechanism as the parties and attorneys to petition the court for access to individual juror information. The new section (k) seeks to resolve the apparent contradiction between GR 15(a) and GR 15(j) related to the master jury source list maintained by the clerk's office.
(3) Washington State Bar Association Action: None.
(4) Supporting Materials: Washington State Jury Commission Report to the Board for Judicial Administration, July 2000, Recommendation 18.
(5) Spokesperson: Hon. Daniel Berschauer.
(6) Hearing: Not recommended.
GR 15 (j) and (k)
Concerning Access to Juror Information
[a] Unchanged
[b] Unchanged
[c] Unchanged
[d] Unchanged
[e] Unchanged
[f] Unchanged
[h] Unchanged
[i] Unchanged
[j] Access to Juror Information. Individual juror
information, other than name, is presumed to be private. After
the conclusion of a jury trial, the attorney for a party, or
party pro se, or member of the public, may petition the trial
court for access to individual juror information under the
control of court. Upon a showing of good cause, the court may
permit the petitioner to have access to relevant information.
The court may require that juror information not be disclosed to
other persons.
[k] Access to Master Jury Source List. Master jury source list information, other than name, is presumed to be private. Upon a showing of good cause, the court may permit a petitioner to have access to relevant information from the list. The court may require that the information not be disclosed to other persons.
GR 9(d) Cover Sheet |
Concerning Disqualifying, Excusing, and Postponing Prospective Jurors
Submitted by the Washington State Jury Commission,
a subcommittee of the Board for Judicial Administration
(1) Background: The Washington State Jury Commission
recommends that in order to promote broad citizen participation
and to send a message that courts respect the time commitments of
citizens, a state-wide policy should be established that will
strictly enforce and limit the granting of jury excusals while
liberally granting requests for postponement. The Commission
recommends creating a standardized process for postponing jury
service that includes prompt responses to correspondence from
prospective jurors. Best practices for granting excusals and
postponements are detailed in Recommendation 10 of the
Commission's Report.
(2) Purpose: This proposed rule allows a judge to delegate written authority to disqualify, postpone, or excuse a potential juror from jury service. The proposal adopts a policy of liberally allowing postponements for personal or work-related inconvenience and of strictly limiting excusals.
(3) Washington State Bar Association Action: None.
(4) Supporting Materials: Washington State Jury Commission Report to the Board for Judicial Administration, July 2000, Recommendation 10.
(5) Spokesperson: Hon. Daniel Berschauer.
(6) Hearing: Not recommended.
New Rule GR 28
Jury Service Postponement, Excusal, and Disqualification
[a] Scope of rule. This rule addresses the procedures for postponing and excusing jury service under RCW 2.36.100 and 2.36.110 and for disqualifying potential jurors under RCW 2.36.070 (basic statutory qualifications).
[b] Delegation of authority to postpone, excuse, or disqualify.
(1) The judges of a court may delegate to court staff and county clerks their authority to disqualify, postpone, or excuse a potential juror from jury service.
(2) Any delegation of authority under this rule must be written and must specify the criteria for making these decisions.
(3) Judges may not delegate decision-making authority over any grounds for peremptory challenges or challenges for cause that fall outside the scope of this rule.
[c] Grounds for postponement of service.
(1) Postponement of service for personal or work-related inconvenience should be liberally granted when requested in a timely manner.
(2) Postponement shall be to a specified period of time within the twelve-month period pursuant to RCW 2.36.100(2).
[d] Grounds for excusal from service.
(1) Excusal from jury service shall be limited and shall be allowed only when justified by the criteria established in RCW 2.36.100(1) and 2.36.110.
[e] Grounds for disqualification of potential jurors. [Reserved. See RCW 2.36.070.]
GR 9(d) Cover Sheet |
Concerning Note-taking by Jurors
Submitted by the Washington State Jury Commission,
a subcommittee of the Board for Judicial Administration
Note-Taking by Jurors:
(1) Background: Court rules currently allow jurors to take
notes with the permission of the trial judge. Although many
judges in the state allow jurors to take notes during trial, the
practice is not universal. Research shows that jurors who take
notes remember the evidence more accurately, apply the evidence
to the law more accurately, are more attentive during trial, and
are more satisfied with jury service. The Washington State Jury
Commission recommends that jurors should be permitted to take
notes during trial, regardless of the length or complexity of the
trial.
(2) Purpose: The proposed amendment would permit jurors to take notes in every case.
(3) Washington State Bar Association Action: None.
(4) Supporting Materials: Washington State Jury Commission Report to the Board for Judicial Administration, July 2000, Recommendation 29.
(5) Spokesperson: Hon. Daniel Berschauer.
(6) Hearing: Not recommended.
CR 47
Concerning Note-Taking by Jurors
[b] Unchanged
[c] Unchanged
[d] Unchanged
[e] Unchanged
[f] Unchanged
[g] Unchanged
[h] Unchanged
[i] Unchanged
[j] Note-Taking by Jurors. With the permission of the trial
judge, In all cases, jurors shall be allowed to may take written
notes regarding the evidence presented to them and keep these
notes with them during when they retire for their deliberation.
The court may allow jurors to keep these notes with them in the
jury room during recesses, in which case jurors may review their
own notes but may not share or discuss the notes with other
jurors until they begin deliberating. Such notes should be
treated as confidential between the jurors making them and their
fellow jurors, and shall be destroyed immediately after the
verdict is rendered.
GR9(d) Cover Sheet |
Concerning Note-taking by Jurors
Submitted by the Washington State Jury Commission,
a subcommittee of the Board for Judicial Administration
Note-Taking by Jurors:
(1) Background: See Background statement for CR 47.
(2) Purpose: See Purpose statement for CR 47. Also, the rule's last sentence is being revised to parallel other court rules on this topic: CR 47; CRLJ 38; and CrRLJ 6.8.
(3) Washington State Bar Association Action: None.
(4) Supporting Materials: Washington State Jury Commission Report to the Board for Judicial Administration, July 2000, Recommendation 29.
(5) Spokesperson: Hon. Daniel Berschauer.
(6) Hearing: Not recommended.
CrR 6.8
Concerning Note-Taking by Jurors
NOTE-TAKING BY JURORS
GR 9(d) Cover Sheet |
Concerning Note-taking by Jurors
Submitted by the Washington State Jury Commission,
a subcommittee of the Board for Judicial Administration
Note-Taking by Jurors:
(1) Background: See Background statement for CR 47.
(2) Purpose: See Purpose statement for CR 47.
(3) Washington State Bar Association Action: None.
(4) Supporting Materials: Washington State Jury Commission Report to the Board for Judicial Administration, July 2000, Recommendation 29.
(5) Spokesperson: Hon. Daniel Berschauer.
(6) Hearing: Not recommended.
CRLJ 38
Concerning Note-taking by Jurors
[b] Unchanged
[c] Unchanged
[d] Unchanged
[e] Unchanged
[f] Unchanged
[g] Unchanged
[h] Note-Ttaking by Jurors. With the permission of the
trial judge, In all cases, jurors shall be allowed to may take
written notes regarding the evidence presented to them and keep
these notes with them during when they retire for their
deliberation. The court may allow jurors to keep these notes
with them in the jury room during recesses, in which case jurors
may review their own notes but may not share or discuss the notes
with other jurors until they begin deliberating. Such notes
should be treated as confidential between the jurors making them
and their fellow jurors, and shall be destroyed immediately after
the verdict is rendered.
GR 9(d) Cover Sheet |
Concerning Note-taking by Jurors
Submitted by the Washington State Jury Commission,
a subcommittee of the Board for Judicial Administration
Note-Taking by Jurors:
(1) Background: See Background statement for CR 47.
(2) Purpose: See Purpose statement for CR 47. Also, the rule's last sentence is being revised to parallel other court rules on this topic: CR 47; CRLJ 38; and CrR 6.8.
(3) Washington State Bar Association Action: None.
(4) Supporting Materials: Washington State Jury Commission Report to the Board for Judicial Administration, July 2000, Recommendation 29.
(5) Spokesperson: Hon. Daniel Berschauer.
(6) Hearing: Not recommended.
CrRLJ 6.8
Concerning Note-Taking by Jurors
NOTE-TAKING BY JURORS
GR 9(d) Cover Sheet |
Concerning Jurors Proposing Written Questions to Witnesses
Submitted by the Washington State Jury Commission,
a subcommittee of the Board for Judicial Administration
Questions of Witnesses from Jurors:
(1) Background: The Washington State Jury Commission
recommended that jurors should be allowed to propose written
questions for witnesses during civil trials, subject to careful
judicial supervision. Permitting jurors' questions acknowledges
the important role of jurors as active learners and active
participants in the search for the truth, promotes efforts to
focus on the merits of a case rather than speculation, and avoids
the real possibility of an erroneous verdict based on confusion
or misunderstanding. Judges and attorneys who have used this
procedure report that the great majority of juror questions are
serious, concise, and relevant to the issues of the trial.
Counsel also find the questions to be a useful gauge of how
clearly they are explaining their case. Jurors who have been
permitted to ask questions indicate the procedure kept them
engaged in the proceeding and gave them greater satisfaction with
jury service. Studies verify that the advantages to jurors and
the trial as a whole outweigh the feared risks. Best practices
will be developed for these procedures.
(2) Purpose: The new section would permit jurors to submit written questions for witnesses in civil cases.
(3) Washington State Bar Association Action: None.
(4) Supporting Materials: Washington State Jury Commission Report to the Board for Judicial Administration, July 2000, Recommendation 33.
(5) Spokesperson: Hon. Daniel Berschauer.
(6) Hearing: Not recommended.
CR 43
Concerning Jurors Proposing Written Questions to Witnesses
[b] Unchanged
[c] Unchanged
[d] Unchanged
[e] Unchanged
[f] Unchanged
[g] Unchanged
[h] Unchanged
[i] Unchanged
[j] Unchanged
[k] Juror Questions for Witnesses. The court shall permit jurors to submit to the court written questions directed to witnesses. Counsel shall be given an opportunity to object to such questions in a manner that does not inform the jury that an objection was made. The court shall establish procedures for submitting, objecting to, and answering questions from jurors to witnesses. The court may rephrase or reword questions from jurors to witnesses. The court may refuse on its own motion to allow a particular question from a juror to a witness.
GR 9(d) Cover Sheet |
Concerning Jurors Proposing Written Questions to Witnesses
Submitted by the Washington State Jury Commission,
a subcommittee of the Board for Judicial Administration
Questions of Witnesses from Jurors:
(1) Background: See Background statement for proposal to
amend CR 43.
(2) Purpose: See Purpose statement for proposal to amend CR 43.
(3) Washington State Bar Association Action: None.
(4) Supporting Materials: Washington State Jury Commission Report to the Board for Judicial Administration, July 2000, Recommendation 33.
(5) Spokesperson: Hon. Daniel Berschauer.
(6) Hearing: Not recommended.
CRLJ 43
Concerning Jurors Proposing Written Questions to Witnesses
[b] Unchanged
[c] Unchanged
[d] Unchanged
[e] Unchanged
[f] Unchanged
[g] Unchanged
[h] Unchanged
[i] Unchanged
[j] Unchanged
[k] Juror Questions for Witnesses. The court shall permit jurors to submit to the court written questions directed to witnesses. Counsel shall be given an opportunity to object to such questions in a manner that does not inform the jury that an objection was made. The court shall establish procedures for submitting, objecting to, and answering questions from jurors to witnesses. The court may rephrase or reword questions from jurors to witnesses. The court may refuse on its own motion to allow a particular question from a juror to a witness.
GR 9(d) Cover Sheet |
Concerning Questions from
Deliberating Jurors/Rehearing Evidence
Submitted by the Washington State Jury Commission,
a subcommittee of the Board for Judicial Administration
Questions from Deliberating Jurors and Requests to Rehear or
Replay Evidence
(1) Background:
(a) Questions from Deliberating Jurors. The failure of trial judges to be of greater assistance to jurors during deliberations is a primary source of juror confusion. Research shows that the vast majority of the time, judges answer jurors' requests for clarification of instructions by simply referring the jurors to the instructions without further comments. Although many judges and lawyers consider juror questions an inconvenience, they should be welcomed as opportunities to determine whether additional or corrective action is necessary to ensure juror comprehension. Judges should exercise their discretion to respond more fully to deliberating jurors' questions. As long as the judge does not impermissibly comment on the evidence, imply a view on the merits, or pressure the jury, the judge's response will not constitute error.
(b) Requests to Rehear or Replay Evidence. Court rules provide that when the jury retires for deliberation, it must take with it the written instructions given, all exhibits (except testimonial exhibits such as depositions) received in evidence, and the verdict form(s). However, the court rules do not specifically address the jury's ability to review testimonial evidence after deliberations have begun. Concerns sometimes are expressed that granting these requests may be interpreted as an unconstitutional comment on the evidence or that jurors might place undue weight on the selected testimony.
In State v. Koontz, 102 Wn.App.309 (2000), the Court of Appeals upheld the replaying of videotaped trial testimony when requested by a jury that was otherwise deadlocked. The Court of Appeals held that trial courts have broad discretion to reread or replay trial testimony at a jury's request, but also emphasized that this discretion must be exercised with caution due to the dangers inherent in rereading testimony for deliberating jurors (noted above). Both the Koontz opinion and the Report of the Washington State Jury Commission discuss these dangers along with appropriate safeguards. Appropriate safeguards include: soliciting argument from the parties; giving the jurors cautionary instructions; making sure that the requested testimony does not overemphasize any particular party's position; ordinarily not selecting additional evidence for the jury to hear lest jurors interpret this as a judicial comment on the evidence; and rereading or replaying the testimony in open court instead of allowing the jurors to review the testimony in the jury room. Best practices will be developed for these procedures.
(2) Purpose: The proposed amendment would establish procedures for deliberating jurors to ask questions regarding clarification of instructions or questions on evidence. It would also grant judges discretion to allow jurors to rehear evidence as long as appropriate safeguards are in place.
(3) Washington State Bar Association Action: None.
(4) Supporting Materials: Washington State Jury Commission Report to the Board for Judicial Administration, July 2000, Recommendation 38, 39, and 40.
(5) Spokesperson: Hon. Daniel Berschauer.
(6) Hearing: Not recommended.
Concerning Questions from
Deliberating Jurors/Rehearing Evidence
[b] Unchanged
[c] Unchanged
[d] Unchanged
[e] Unchanged
[f] Unchanged
[g] Unchanged
[h] Unchanged
[i] Questions from Jury During Deliberations Further
Instructions. After retirement for deliberation, if the jury
desires to be informed on any point of law, the judge may require
the officer having them in charge to conduct them into court.
Upon the jury being brought into court, the information
requested, if given, shall be given in the presence of, or after
notice to the parties or their counsel. The jury shall be
instructed that any question it wishes to ask the court about the
instructions or evidence should be signed, dated and submitted in
writing to the bailiff without any indication of the status of
the jury's deliberations. The court shall notify the parties of
the contents of the questions and provide them an opportunity to
comment upon an appropriate response. Written questions from the
jury, the court's response and any objections thereto shall be
made a part of the record. The court shall respond to all
questions from a deliberating jury in open court or in writing.
In its discretion, the court may grant a jury's request to rehear
or replay evidence, but should do so in a way that is least
likely to be seen as a comment on the evidence, in a way that is
not unfairly prejudicial and in a way that minimizes the
possibility that jurors will give undue weight to such evidence.
Any additional instruction upon any point of law shall be given
in writing.
[j] Unchanged
GR 9(d) Cover Sheet |
Concerning Questions from
Deliberating Jurors/Rehearing Evidence
Submitted by the Washington State Jury Commission,
a subcommittee of the Board for Judicial Administration
Questions from Deliberating Jurors and Requests to Rehear or
Replay Evidence
(1) Background: See Background statement for proposal to
amend CR 51.
(2) Purpose: See Background statement for proposal to amend CR 51.
(3) Washington State Bar Association Action: None.
(4) Supporting Materials: Washington State Jury Commission Report to the Board for Judicial Administration, July 2000, Recommendation 38, 39, and 40.
(5) Spokesperson: Hon. Daniel Berschauer.
(6) Hearing: Not recommended.
CrR 6.15
Concerning Questions from
Deliberating Jurors/Rehearing Evidence
[b] Unchanged
[c] Unchanged
[d] Unchanged
[e] Unchanged
[f] Questions from Jury During Deliberations Additional or
Subsequent Instructions.
(1) After retirement for deliberation, if the jury desires
to be informed on any point of law, the judge may require the
officer having them in charge to conduct them into court. Upon
the jury being brought into court, the information requested, if
given, shall be given in the presence of, or after notice to the
parties or their counsel. The jury shall be instructed that any
question it wishes to ask the court about the instructions or
evidence should be signed, dated and submitted in writing to the
bailiff. The court shall notify the parties of the contents of
the questions and provide them an opportunity to comment upon an
appropriate response. Written questions from the jury, the
court's response and any objections thereto shall be made a part
of the record. The court shall respond to all questions from a
deliberating jury in open court or in writing. In its
discretion, the court may grant a jury's request to rehear or
replay evidence, but should do so in a way that is least likely
to be seen as a comment on the evidence, in a way that is not
unfairly prejudicial and in a way that minimizes the possibility
that jurors will give undue weight to such evidence. Any
additional instruction upon any point of law shall be given in
writing.
(2) After jury deliberations have begun, the court shall not instruct the jury in such a way as to suggest the need for agreement, the consequences of no agreement, or the length of time a jury will be required to deliberate.
[g] Unchanged
GR9(d) Cover Sheet |
Concerning Questions from
Deliberating Jurors/Rehearing Evidence
Submitted by the Washington State Jury Commission,
a subcommittee of the Board for Judicial Administration
Questions from Deliberating Jurors and Requests to Rehear or
Replay Evidence
(1) Background: See Background statement for proposal to
amend CR 51.
(2) Purpose: See Background statement for proposal to amend CR 51.
(3) Washington State Bar Association Action: None.
(4) Supporting Materials: Washington State Jury Commission Report to the Board for Judicial Administration, July 2000, Recommendation 38, 39, and 40.
(5) Spokesperson: Hon. Daniel Berschauer.
(6) Hearing: Not recommended.
Concerning Questions from
Deliberating Jurors/Rehearing Evidence
[b] Unchanged
[c] Unchanged
[d] Unchanged
[e] Unchanged
[f] Unchanged
[g] Unchanged
[h] Unchanged
[i] Questions from Jury During Deliberations Further
Instructions. After retirement for deliberation, if the jury
desires to be informed on any point of law, the judge may require
the officer having them in charge to conduct them into court.
Upon the jury's being brought into court, the information
requested, if given, shall be given in the presence of, or after
notice to the parties or their counsel. The jury shall be
instructed that any question it wishes to ask the court about the
instructions or evidence should be signed, dated and submitted in
writing to the bailiff without any indication of the status of
the jury's deliberations. The court shall notify the parties of
the contents of the questions and provide them an opportunity to
comment upon an appropriate response. Written questions from the
jury, the court's response and any objections thereto shall be
made a part of the record. The court shall respond to all
questions from a deliberating jury in open court or in writing.
In its discretion, the court may grant a jury's request to rehear
or replay evidence, but should do so in a way that is least
likely to be seen as a comment on the evidence, in a way that is
not unfairly prejudicial and in a way that minimizes the
possibility that jurors will give undue weight to such evidence.
Any additional instruction upon any point of law shall be given
in writing.
[j] Unchanged
GR 9(d) Cover Sheet |
Concerning Questions from
Deliberating Jurors/Rehearing Evidence
Submitted by the Washington State Jury Commission,
a subcommittee of the Board for Judicial Administration
Questions from Deliberating Jurors and Requests to Rehear or
Replay Evidence
(1) Background: See Background statement for proposal to
amend CR 51.
(2) Purpose: See Background statement for proposal to amend CR 51.
(3) Washington State Bar Association Action: None.
(4) Supporting Materials: Washington State Jury Commission Report to the Board for Judicial Administration, July 2000, Recommendation 38, 39, and 40.
(5) Spokesperson: Hon. Daniel Berschauer.
(6) Hearing: Not recommended.
CrRLJ 6.15
Concerning Questions from
Deliberating Jurors/Rehearing Evidence
[b] Unchanged
[c] Unchanged
[d] Unchanged
[e] Questions from Jury During Deliberations Additional or
Subsequent Instructions.
(1) After the jury retires for deliberation, any
instructions shall be given in writing. They may be given in
open court or delivered to the jury room, but only in the
presence of, or after notice to, the parties and their lawyers.
The jury shall be instructed that any question it wishes to ask
the court about the instructions or evidence should be signed,
dated and submitted in writing to the bailiff. The court shall
notify the parties of the contents of the questions and provide
them an opportunity to comment upon an appropriate response.
Written questions from the jury, the court's response and any
objections thereto shall be made a part of the record. The court
shall respond to all questions from a deliberating jury in open
court or in writing. In its discretion, the court may grant a
jury's request to rehear or replay evidence, but should do so in
a way that is least likely to be seen as a comment on the
evidence, in a way that is not unfairly prejudicial and in a way
that minimizes the possibility that jurors will give undue weight
to such evidence. Any additional instruction upon any point of
law shall be given in writing.
(2) After jury deliberations have begun, the court shall not instruct the jury in such a way as to suggest the need for agreement, the consequences of no agreement, or the length of time a jury will be required to deliberate.
[f] Unchanged
Reviser's note: The typographical errors in the above material occurred in the copy filed by the State Supreme Court and appear in the Register pursuant to the requirements of RCW 34.08.040.
Reviser's note: The brackets and enclosed material in the text above occurred in the copy filed by the State Supreme Court and appear in the Register pursuant to the requirements of RCW 34.08.040.