What Is One Day One Trial and Why It Should Be Standard for All Courts

Photo by Timothy L Brock on Unsplash

One Day/One Trial jury duty service systems are becoming increasingly common across the United States. Dallas County, for instance, was one of the first jurisdictions to implement the system for jury duty[1]. It started even earlier in Harris County, Texas in the 1970s[2], but some jurisdictions had not implemented this system heading into the 21^st Century.[3] One Day/One Trial (sometimes referred to as ODOT) is a jury selection process where if you are not selected to serve on a jury the day you report for jury duty, you will be released to go home unless the trial court instructs you to return.[4] One Day/One Trial, and shorter jury services in general, can benefit both the juror and the justice system as a whole.

Benefits to the Juror

One Day/One Trial system benefits both employees serving on juries and employers. Employees will lose less potential income because they will have a definitive and shorter time frame they will be serving as a juror for.[5] Likewise, employers will have an easier time finding a substitute for that employee.[6] In this way, the One Day/One Trial system expands representation on juries by making it easier for everyone to serve as a juror because barriers like taking time off work and losing income are lowered.[7]

Jurors also benefit from the One Day/One Trial by having more opportunities to serve on the jury, which can be a positive and educational act of civil service.[8] A study done in the late 1980s showed that, while more people were significantly more likely to sit on only one voir dire in a One Day/One Trial system, there was only a slight decrease in the number of people who were selected to sit on a jury – meaning that more people overall had the opportunity to serve as jurors.[9]

Benefits to the Justice System

One of the primary benefits of the One Day/One Trial system is the increased diversity of jury pools that it offers.[10] As mentioned earlier, One Day/One Trial systems ease the burden of taking off work and allow more people a chance to be on a jury.[11] It also captures a broader cross-section of the workforce because it allows sets a certain time that potential jurors can schedule to be off.[12] A diverse jury pool and diverse juries are broadly recognized to lead to a healthier, fairer justice system.[13]

A One Day/One Trial system also increases the overall effectiveness of the justice system. First, despite some concerns from critics, One Day/One Trial systems have actually been shown to keep overall costs down and costs per juror down – even though more jurors are being summoned.[14] Costs are lowered both overall and per juror, because costs associated with summoning and training jurors are lower than costs associated with continually covering maintaining jurors who are serving, like parking or travel, food, lost wages, etc.[15]

But more than that, jurors have reported being more engaged and attentive during the process and are more likely to appear when summoned because jurors know they will only be held for one day or one trial.[16] While concerns over losing ‘veteran jurors’ have been raised in an argument against the One Day/One Trial system, fresh jurors are often less cynical, more cooperative, and approach trials they are placed on with a fresh perspective unaffected by the last trial.[17]

Overall, a One Day/One Trial system brings many benefits with it while having little downside. A One Day/One Trial system can increase diversity in the jury pool by lowering barriers to serving on juries, like lost wages and time. The One Day/One Trial system can also increase juror engagement and satisfaction during the process while keeping costs to the justice system down. The benefits stand for themselves, and every jurisdiction could likely benefit from using the One Day/One Trial system.

---

[1] Dallas County, Jury System, (last visited March 15, 2022).

[2] G. Thomas Munsterman, Evaluation of One Day/One Trial Term of Jury Service, National Center for State Courts (February 7, 1990) at 1.

[3] Hon. Jacqueline Connor (ret.), What One Day One Trial Means to You, CAALA Advocate Magazine (Oct. 2007).

[4] Dallas County, Jury System, (last visited March 15, 2022).

[5] Stephen Michael Tow, Fact Sheet: One Day or One Trial Jury Service, Judicial Council of California (January 2022; Originally created January 2016).

[6] Id.

[7] Terry F. Holtrop, An Evaluation of the One-Week, One-Trial Juror Term of Service for 17^th Circuit Court for Kent County, Michigan, Institute for Court Management Court Development Program (May, 2004) at 43.

[8] Munsterman, Supra at 3.

[9] Id.

[10] Holtrop, Supra at 28.

[11] Id. at 43.

[12] Munsterman, Supra at 5.

[13] Ashish S. Joshi and Christina T. Kline, Lack of Jury Lack of Jury Diversity: A National Problem with Individual Consequences, American Bar Association (September 1, 2015).

[14] Holtrop, Supra at 33-34; Munsterman, Supra at 10-11.

[15] Holtrop, Supra at 33-34.

[16] Holtrop, Supra at 40-41; Munsterman, Supra at 6.

[17] Holtrop, Supra at 40-41, 49, 53; Munsterman, Supra at 6.

How Social Media can be Used as a Tool to Learn More About Jurors

Photo by Nathan Dumlao on Unsplash

            You might not be able to make 500 million friends without making a few enemies along the way,[1] but you can learn a lot about all your friends and enemies from what they post on their Facebook or Twitter page. So, what can lawyers learn about jurors through social media, and what problems might arise from using social media sites to learn more about jurors and potential jurors?

At first, using social media data can be a daunting task to learn more about jurors – and even more so when it comes to potential jurors in preparation for voir dire.[2] Extensive data is compiled across different sites, and it can be simply inefficient to sift through it in certain circumstances.[3] For instance, if names of veniremembers are only given shortly before voir dire begins, too much time would be spent just trying to verify that the social media account was the correct one to even begin learning anything from it.  But there can still be a lot to gain from social media, even as a simple jumping-off point, in both jury selection and insight on the selected jury.

Jury Selection

People love to post on social media about everything from their thoughts on national issues to the best Thanksgiving recipes. While some of this information might not be useful, a lot can give attorneys more insight on who they might be selecting to be on the jury panel. Of course, during the jury selection process, voir dire, there might not be much time to dig through posts on specific topics.[4] But even still, things like a person’s relationship status, job, religion, political leanings, and education may all still be listed on a person’s Facebook profile page.

Another aspect of social media that can give attorneys quick insight into potential jurors during, or in preparation for, voir dire is the jurors' interactions on the social media site with others and other posts.[5] Twitter, for instance, allows other users to see the posts a public profile has ‘liked.’ Facebook’s post interaction is more robust and may potentially offer more insight than Twitter’s simple ‘like’ feature because Facebook allows for potential jurors to not only like, but love, dislike, indicate sorrow, or even laughter. Interactions with posts like local news articles or opinion pieces, especially relating to the topic the trial may center on, can give attorneys a powerful glance into a potential juror’s feelings.[6] This information can create a great starting point to begin tailoring voir dire questions and gain a jump start on understanding the potential jurors a little better.[7]

Gaining Insight on the Jury

When trying to gain insight into jurors' and potential jurors’ beliefs and backgrounds, a tailored approach and filtered approach yield the best results.[8] But this often requires time and resources that aren’t available during jury selection, but those resources may be at hand once the jury is set. At that point, the data serves to guide arguments, trial strategies, and strategies on evidence presentation.

Jurors may indicate things about their interests or beliefs that can be used to craft appealing trial themes, allegories, or stories that relate to the juror’s interest to better tell your client’s story.[9] This is also an opportunity to take a juror that you believed to be apathetic or unfavorable to your side during voir dire and find something that will relate to the juror, ultimately making them now sympathetic to your case.[10]

Going past social media can also be extremely helpful post-selection.[11] Doing a broader internet search of potential jurors can give information about a person’s family status, political party registration and campaign contributions, and potential wealth valuation.[12] More information, such as information about bankruptcies, liens, civil cases in general, criminal history, professional licenses, and incorporation filings, can also be gleamed about potential jurors through online subscription databases.[13]

Ethics

            Before diving into the endless sea of the internet and social media sites, it’s important to be mindful of any ethical rules and adhere strictly to them – always erring on the side of caution. The ABA Model Rule 3.5 charges attorneys with maintaining the impartiality and decorum of the court or tribunal.[14] This includes avoiding any inappropriate communications with jurors that might be an attempt to influence them, harass them, that would be unwanted, or that would be made ex parte.[15]

            But the ABA’s stance in Formal Opinion 466 is that attorneys can access potential jurors’ and jurors’ social media accounts, but they cannot send access requests, use others to send access requests, or circumvent privacy settings.[16] This would be exactly the type of ex parte and unwanted communication that Rule 3.5 guards against.[17]

            Social media can be a fantastic tool in many facets of society, including litigation strategy and jury selection. There is a treasure trove of knowledge that we make available to the public through social media platforms as a way to connect with others that can also be extremely helpful to trial attorneys hoping to learn more about what kind of juror you might be. But social media also comes with its own privacy and ethical concerns, so always stay mindful of the professional ethical rules before using social media as a tool to gain insight into who might be comprising the jury.

---

[1] Kayla Wembley The Top 10 Everything of 2010 Time (December 9, 2010) (quoting the tagline of The Social Network (2010)).

[2] Jury Analyst Social Media in Jury Selection: Good or Bad? Juryanalyst.com (January 13, 2021).

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Jeffrey T. Frederick, PhD Using Social Media News Posts in Jury Selection (and More) National Legal Research Group, Jury Research Services Division (June 12, 2019, 3:06 p.m.).

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Miles Hutton Using Internet Research to Get to Know Your Prospective Jurors JD Supra (May 13, 2021).

[9] Sonia Chopra Using the Internet and Social Media in Jury Selection Plaintiff Magazine (February 2012).

[10] Id.

[11] Hutton, Supra.

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

[14] ABA Model Rules of Pro. Conduct 3.5.

[15] Id.

[16] ABA Comm. on Ethics & Pro. Resp., Formal Op. 466 (2014).

[17] Id. 

Jury Instructions: How Jury Instructions can be Improved for Better Understanding and Clarity

             

Photo by Scott Graham on Unsplash

               In my last blog,[1] I touched on why jurors often struggle to understand jury instructions or charges and how jurors misunderstanding the charge can have detrimental consequences to the trials they are jurors for and for the legal system as a whole. But in this post, I want to explore some ways to make jury instructions better by making them more clear and more understandable to a lay juror with no legal experience or knowledge.

            When jurors misunderstand the instructions, it isn’t typically based on their lack of ability to understand complex legal theories, or jurors’ inability to use complex reasoning. Instead, jurors often misunderstand instructions because of overly complex or legalistic language and writing. So, ideally, jurors will understand instructions better if they are written and given more clearly, understandably, and with their audience in mind.

Improving Understanding Through Timing and Frequency of Instructions

            The first way juror understanding can be improved has nothing to do with how they are written. Giving juries instructions at multiple stages throughout the trial can help jurors better understand the charges.[2]  Preliminary instructions, before opening arguments and during voir dire, could lead to improved understanding of the final charge on its own. Starting the jurors off with a better understanding of duties a defendant may owe or how a plaintiff might be equally liable can give them a better understanding as a whole to put other issues into context.[3]

Likewise, reiterating or incorporating the charge into closing arguments or right before may increase understanding because jurors are bringing their full attention to the legal arguments and making a decision.[4] Reiteration of the instructions at this point will also help give jurors context for the arguments they are hearing during closing.[5] Both the repetition of the charge and the timing of the charge play a role in improving jury understanding of instructions.[6]

Improving Instructions Through Common Structural Issues in Charges

            Jurors often have a common problem with structural errors in jury charges, that is errors stemming from jurors not understanding the relationship between instructions or why they are asked to disregard certain information yet give more attention to other facts.[7] One way to overcome this common mistake is to provide explicit guidance and explanations to help jurors understand the connection between the different instructions.[8] Another way to highlight and make this type of relationship understandable is to arrange the instructions in a logical order, which might seem obvious but can be easy to forget because the order makes sense to a trained legal mind.[9] Another way to help overcome these structural issues is to give jurors explicit definitions or legal dictionaries to help them better contextualize the instructions.[10] Finally, explaining to jurors why they are being asked to disregard certain information and focus their attention in other areas removes the cloud of mystery that jurors can get lost in where they typically start discarding instructions they don’t understand.[11]

Improving Instructions Through Writing

            One of the most important things to mind in all writing is to write for your audience, and this principle is true when writing jury instructions. So, jury instructions must be written with the average juror in mind.[12] Inexperienced, but still very intelligent, writers often display their intelligence in their writing and make themselves feel smart, but they might leave their audience lost behind them. But an experienced writer leaves their readers feeling smart themselves because the writer has kept the audience in mind. Keeping the jurors in mind as the audience means using understandable, non-legalistic language, simple grammar, active voice, and clear writing.[13]

            It’s easy to forget that jurors are not trained legal minds amid trial, after spending so much time on the law and being surrounded by those that are trained legal minds. But it’s important to remember to avoid legal jargon and phrases that jurors can easily be confused by. Words ending in -or or -ee such as lessor or lessee can give even first-year law students (like me at one time) pause when dealing with different parties in a case.[14] Try to use substitute synonyms or explanations when possible because this help jurors not become lost in legal jargon but still effectively deliver your point.[15] This goes double for archaic language like therewithin, whereupon, or heretofore. This will improve understanding for jurors and provide clarity at the same time.

            Another way to help jury instructions be clearer is to use active voice and verbs instead of nouns. Active voice is preached to law students as a hallmark of good legal writing but using the verb form of a word instead of the -ion or noun version provides more clarity, such as “James took steps in mitigation of his damages” vs. “James mitigated his damages” or “His failure to act constituted negligence” vs. “He is negligent because he failed to act” and for examples.[16] Using active voice and avoiding nouns when for verbs can also help keep sentences simpler, shorter, and more understandable.[17]

            Finally, being as clear as possible is an important goal in all writing, especially with jurors in mind. Take steps to precisely identify parties instead of relying on a defined term like “Defendant John Smith (“Defendant”)” to avoid confusing jurors.[18]  Examples can also help provide context and add clarity, whether in defining unavoidable legal terms or to help jurors understand a difficult legal point.[19]

            Overall, jury instructions can be made more understandable and clearer by utilizing sound writing principles such as using active voice, keeping the audience in mind, and logically ordering the structure. These principles can be easy to forget when writing major briefs and motions, and even more so for jury instructions. But keeping these principles in mind and utilizing other tools at our disposal, jury instructions can be made much more understandable to a layperson and improve the jury system as a whole.

---

[1] Ralston, J. Hunter, Jury Instructions: Should Instructions be Improved and Why Good Instructions Matter, February 23, 2022.

[2] Perkel, Steven E. and Perkel, Benjamin, Jury Instructions: Work in Progress, Vol. 27 The Jury Expert: The Art and Science of Litigation Advocacy Issue 2 (2015) at 3.

[3] Kathy D. Patrick and James A. Reeder, Jr., An Effort to Enhance Jury Trials in Texas State and Federal Court, Jury Innovations Project Pilot Manual, (2011) at 15.

[4] Abrams, Jeffrey, Campbell, Christopher G., & Cooper, Dan, DLA Piper, Sharpen the Nails: 8 Ideas for Empowering Jurors in Complex Trials, Product Liability Alert, September 24, 2018

[5] Walbolt, Sylvia H., Jurors Are Only Human: Proper Instructions Can Aid Their Good-Faith Deliberations, Appellate & Trial Support, January 25, 2020.

[6] Perkel, et. al., Supra. at 3.

[7] Walbot, Supra.

[8] Id.

[9] See id.

[10] See Perkel, et. al., Supra. at 4.

[11] See id.

[12] Peter M. Tiersma, Communicating with Juries: How to Draft More Understandable Jury Instructions, National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, VA, 2006 [originally published in 10 Scribes J. Legal Writing 1 (2005–2006)] at 2.

[13] Id.

[14] Id. at 5.

[15] See id.

[16] Id. at 8.

[17] See id. at 12.

[18] Id. at 14.

[19] See Perkel, et. al., Supra. at 4; See Tiersma, Supra. at 15.

 

Jury Instructions: Should Instructions be Improved and Why Good Instructions Matter

Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash 

            For litigators, years of toil are often capstoned by the trial, and the trial is the final chapter for a litigant’s claims. The lawyers play their role by crafting the best arguments for their clients’ positions, witnesses play theirs by providing facts and context, and judges play their role by ensuring the rules of court are properly followed. But the jury has center stage when it is all said and done and when a decision must ultimately be made. And the last piece of guidance on law and procedure that jurors are given are the jury instructions or the jury charge.

What are Jury Instructions or Charges?

 Jury charges are the questions, instructions, and definitions given to a jury by the judge in a case. They provide direction and information to the jury regarding their deliberations. Often, pattern jury charges are available to help guide attorneys and judges in crafting jury instructions. Pattern jury charges are model jury charges designed to guide judges and lawyers in formulating jury charges.[1] Along with model charge text, they often include comments and references to major cases. The State Bar of Texas produces its own set of model jury charges called Texas Pattern Jury Charges (PJC), which are generally published on a two-year cycle.[2] Other Texas pattern jury charges are produced by private companies.

But, despite these pattern jury charges, research indicates that “[J]urors don’t understand their instructions as well as they think they do, as well as judges, would like to think they do or as well as we in Society might hope they do.”[3]

Why are Jurors Struggling with Jury Charges?

Why are jurors struggling to understand their instructions despite the legal community’s best efforts? Well, for starters, decisions may be rushed in the heat of trial, perceptions too narrowed, or the law too confusing.[4] But other factors contribute to the struggles of jurors as well such as legal language being too complex and the average juror being a legal novice, relatively low average literacy levels, jurors often relying on schemas, stereotypes or shortcuts, and the overall timing of the instructions.[5]

Homing in on the language used in jury instructions, it might be an easy assumption that juries simply don't understand complex legal ideas and so they simply discard them. While it has been found that jurors disregard instructions when they are confused by them, it’s not because they don’t or cannot understand the complex legal ideas.[6] Instead, linguistic complexity is a greater contributor to poor understanding than the actual complexity of the law, and when language is simplified comprehension improves.[7]

Of course, this can have a doubling effect when the fact that a vast majority of jurors are legal novices is taken into consideration. Everyday phrases and language can have a different, significant meaning in law that is lost on jurors, and instructions are too often not written with the novice in mind – leading to more confusion. To overcome this confusion, jurors turn to schemas, stereotypes, and other cognitive shortcuts to make sense of the instructions leading to improper applications of the law and an inconsistent application of the law.

Why Should We Want Better, More Understandable Jury Instructions?

The first and obvious reason why attorneys, judges, and society at large should all want better, more understandable jury charges is the same reason why jury charges matter – the charge is the last piece of guidance on law and procedure that jurors are given. The charge will guide the jurors during deliberations in coming to an ultimate decision.

Of course, all attorneys want jurors to understand their instructions and apply the law correctly to the facts. The same goes for judges. But it might be missed by attorneys and judges in exactly how better jury instructions will help jurors when crafting and giving jurors their instructions. Better written jury instructions have been found to help jurors during their deliberations to effectively discuss facts, evidence, and apply the law correctly to them.[8] Better and more clear instructions also help reduce juror bias, reliance on stereotypes, and overreliance on personal experience or possibly incorrect knowledge of the law.[9] Overall, lawyers and judges have a vested interest in crafting better, more understandable jury charges because better charges will lead to more legally accurate and fairer outcomes.

            Furthermore, proper instructions should be a concern for society as a whole because of society's interest in a fair legal system and the impact the legal system still has on so many. Despite the overall decline in jury trials, a significant number of trials still take place across the country in state and federal courts. An estimated 148,558 jury trials occurred in state courts across the United States in 2007, involving over a million jurors.[10] Poor jury charges or instructions could cause jurors to misunderstand, misapply, or disregard the law. Jury trials still have great impact and often decide the biggest issue in a person’s life. Better instructions will help these jurors make the correct decision in their trial based on a proper application of the law to the facts. Plus, better and more understandable instructions will help juries more consistently apply the law to cases based on the same claims or charges. More understandable instructions will create a fairer legal system and protect citizens' constitutional rights by creating a more consistent legal system.

           Overall, jury instructions are a vital part of the jury system. Instructions are often the last piece of guidance jurors get before beginning their deliberations. Clear instructions can be jurors’ compass or map to reach their decision, but confusing instructions can dismantle much of what trial lawyers have built during the trial. Attorneys, judges, and society will all benefit by taking the time to craft instructions that will guide jurors instead of leaving them lost in the woods.  

              In my next post, I'll dive into techniques that might improve clarity in jury instructions and ways to help jurors better understand their instructions overall.  

---

[1] Tarlton Law Library Jamail Center for Legal Research, Jury Charges, (Feb. 16 2022 3:34) https://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/texas-legal-resources/jury-instructions

[2] Id.

[3] Perkel, Steven E. and Perkel, Benjamin, Jury Instructions: Work in Progress, Vol. 27 The Jury Expert: The Art and Science of Litigation Advocacy Issue 2 (2015)

[4] Stride, John, A Year of Massaging Jury Instructions, TEXAS DISTRICT & COUNTY ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION (March – April 2012)

[5]Chantelle M. Baguley, Blake M. McKimmie, Barbara M. Masser, Deconstructing the Simplification of Jury Instructions: How Simplifying the Features of Complexity Affects Jurors’ Application of Instructions, 41 Law and Human Behavior 3, at 284 (2017)

[6] Perkel et. al., Supra at 2.

[7] Id.

[8] Perkel et. al., Supra at 2.

[9] Kathy D. Patrick and James A. Reeder, Jr., An Effort to Enhance Jury Trials in Texas State and Federal Court, Jury Innovations Project Pilot Manual, (2011)

[10] Mize, Hon., G.E., retired, Hannafor-Agor, P. & Waters, N.L., (2007). The state of the states survey of jury improvement efforts: a compendium report. National Center for State Courts, Available at http://www.ncsc-jurystudies.org/~/media/Microsites/Files/CJS/ SOS/SOSCompendiumFinal.ashx

To Shuffle or Not to Shuffle? A Critical Look at the Jury Shuffle in Texas

Photo by Amol Tyagi on Unsplash

As an attorney sees the jury venire that has been numbered and seated, they observe a cross-section of people in that county. They begin to ready themselves for voir dire. But Texas is nothing if it isn’t big and if it isn’t unique – which means another twist might be around the corner.  

            At this point, the opposing party invokes Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 223[1] or Texas Criminal Procedure Article 35.11[2] for criminal trials – the jury shuffle. Ordinarily, if the county follows an interchangeable jury system[3], the jurors are placed on the general panel randomly and assigned for service from the top down. But, after being assigned to a court, all the names of the assigned jurors are reshuffled in a receptacle and reordered based on the shuffle if any party demands a shuffle before voir dire examination. Only one shuffle is allowed per trial in civil trials while multiple shuffles are allowed in a criminal trial. The jury shuffle is largely unique to Texas, and it is looked at with mixed feelings inside and outside the Lone Star State.

The idea behind the shuffle is that jurors seated first in order are more likely to be placed on the jury while those at the back are not. The shuffle is intended to provide a more diverse jury by reordering the seated potential jurors in an attempt to make it more likely to have a diverse panel and not be stacked by unscrupulous officials.[4] But many opponents believe that is being used for the exact opposite reasons, to make a jury less diverse.[5]

Shuffling based on the racial makeup of the jury has been the reason for several appeals under Texas law in an attempt to apply Batson [6] to the shuffle. The Court in Miller-El v. Dretke even noted that the prosecution had a predisposition to asking for a jury shuffle when the front of the panel was comprised of mainly Black jurors.[7] But as it currently stands, Texas law is not inclined to apply Batson to jury shuffling,[8] and Federal law is only inclined to view shuffling with suspicion under the circumstances, such as improperly peremptorily striking Black panel members as in Miller-El.[9] Even if Batson were applied to jury shuffling, many of the issues surrounding jury shuffling would remain because of the difficulty in showing a Batson violation.[10]

But proponents of the jury shuffle often look at it as a tool to effectively increase the diversity of selected jury. In Yanez v. State, the defendant took this approach and requested a jury shuffle to potentially move the four Hispanic panel members, who were placed at the end of the order, forward.[11] However, the double-edged sword that is the jury shuffle seemingly cuts one way more often, and that is against a diverse.

On its face, few reasons exist that are not based on prospective jurors’ race, gender, or general appearance for requesting a jury shuffle because so little information about the jurors is known before voir dire examination.[12] While it is true that a jury shuffle could be used to increase the diversity of the jury selected, better and more effective means are available that are not as easily abused such as drawing on names from the county based on various identifications, using electronic or mechanical equipment to select potential jurors, and ensuring that the district clerks are maintaining a fair jury pool.[13]

Texans are then left with two important questions regarding the state of the jury shuffle: 1) does the jury shuffle achieve more harm than good in ensuring a diverse jury; and 2) should the jury system be set up to allow for a favorable jury or an impartial one? In its current form, the jury shuffle seems to be doing more harm than good and allowing litigates to shape juries into favorable ones instead of impartial ones, often rewarding gamesmanship instead of fairness.[14]

The answer to those two questions suggests that the jury shuffle has outlived its usefulness in its current form in Texas and should be abolished or reformed to better ensure justice and fairness in jury selection.

---

[1] Tex. R. Civ. P. 223

[2] Tex. Crim. P. Art. 35.11

[3] Gov. C. §§62.016, 62.017

[4] SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS JURY TASK FORCE, FINAL REPORT 5, 55-64 (1997), http://www.courts.state.tx.us/commtask/ at 176.

[5] Michael M. Gallagher, Abolishing the Texas Jury Shuffle, 35 St. Mary's L.J. 303, 316 (2004)

[6] Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986)

[7] Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (2005)

[8] Blanton v. Quarterman, 543 F.3d 230, 242 (5th Cir. 2008)

[9] Miller-El, 545 U.S. at 253-54.

[10] Michael M. Gallagher, Abolishing the Texas Jury Shuffle, 35 St. Mary's L.J. 303, 328 (2004)

[11] Yanez v. State, 403 S.W.2d 412 (1966)

[12] Texans for Lawsuit Reform, Recommendation for Lawsuit Reform: The Civil Jury in Texas (2007)

[13] Michael M. Gallagher, Abolishing the Texas Jury Shuffle, 35 St. Mary's L.J. 303, 320 (2004)

[14] Michael M. Gallagher, Abolishing the Texas Jury Shuffle, 35 St. Mary's L.J. 303, 325 (2004)