Corby v. Boling
This text of Corby v. Boling (Corby v. Boling) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION
DANIEL CORBY PLAINTIFF
No. 3:17-cv-239-DPM
JASON BOLING, Individually as a Police Officer for the City of Paragould, Arkansas DEFENDANT
ORDER 1. Neither party proposed voir dire questions or objected to the Court’s draft jury instructions. The voir dire and preliminary instructions, Doc. 72-1 & 72-2, are therefore locked in, with one change noted below. We'll revisit the draft final instructions and verdict during trial. 2. The Court will take some precautions in light of COVID-19. We'll have a jury of seven and a venire of twenty-four. FED. R. P.48(a); Krumwiede v. Mercer County Ambulance Service, Inc., 116 F.3d 361, 363 (8th Cir. 1997). Rather than calling eighteen, we'll question the venire as a whole. The Court will require distancing at all times. The Court encourages counsel to work from the table. Whenever practicable, members of the venire, the jury, counsel, and others must wear masks. And everyone must sit at least six feet apart.
So Ordered.
D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge Alo Man 2.020
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Corby v. Boling, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corby-v-boling-ared-2020.