In Re Amendments to Rules of Civ. Procedure

967 So. 2d 178, 2007 WL 2873349
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided October 4, 2007·No. SC05-1091·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

967 So.2d 178 (2007)

In re AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, THE FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, THE STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES, AND THE STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES—IMPLEMENTATION OF JURY INNOVATIONS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS.

No. SC05-1091.

Supreme Court of Florida.

October 4, 2007.

Corinne Cotton Hodak, Chair, Jacksonville, FL, and Keith H. Park, Past Chair, the Civil Procedure Rules Committee, West Palm Beach, FL; H. Scott Fingerhut, Chair, Miami, FL, and the Honorable Thomas H. Bateman, Past Chair, Criminal Procedure Rules Committee, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, FL; Scott D. Makar, Chair, Standard Jury Instructions Rules Committee in Civil Cases, Office of General Counsel, Jacksonville, FL, and the Honorable Ralph Artigliere, Past Chair, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Bartow, FL; the Honorable O.H. Eaton, Jr., Chair, Criminal Court Steering Committee, Eighteenth Judicial Circuit, Sanford, FL; the Honorable Terry David Terrell, Chair, Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, First Judicial Circuit, Pensacola, FL, and Bill Cervone, Past Chair, Office of State Attorney, Eighth Judicial Circuit, Gainesville, FL; the Honorable Robert T. Benton, II, Chair, Rules of Judicial Administration Committee, First District Court of Appeal, Tallahassee, FL, and Katherine E. Giddings of Akerman Senterfitt, Tallahassee, FL, for Petitioners.

*179 Michael Ufferman, P.A. and Paula S. Saunders, Office of Public Defender, Tallahssee, FL, on behalf of Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; Bill Wagner, Tampa, FL; Bill Wagner, Tampa, FL; the Honorable Kathleen F. Dekker, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, FL; the Honorable Nancy A. Daniels, Office of Public Defender, Tallahassee, FL, on behalf of the Florida Public Defender Association; Daniel S. Ciener, Merritt Island, FL; the Honorable David A. Glant, Eighth Judicial Circuit, Gainesville, FL; Brian L. Tannebaum and Milton Hirsch, Miami, FL, on behalf of Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers — Miami Chapter; the Honorable Dale Ross, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Fort Lauderdale, FL; Arthur I. Jacobs of Jacobs and Associations, P.A., Fernandina Beach, FL, on behalf of the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association; John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, the Florida Bar, Tallahassee, FL, and George Euripedes Tragos, Past Chair, Criminal Procedure Rules Committee, Clearwater, FL, Responding with comments.

WELLS, J.

We have for consideration a number of proposed amendments to court rules and standard jury instructions. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.

I. BACKGROUND

In November 1999, the Jury Innovations Committee (Committee) of this Court's Judicial Management Council embarked on the most comprehensive review and thorough evaluation of Florida's jury system in the history of this state. The Committee, appointed by then Chief Justice Major B. Harding, consisted of twenty-two members, who were broadly representative of the many groups interested in and affected by Florida's civil and criminal jury system. Members included judges from the district, circuit, and county courts, a state attorney, a public defender, a clerk of court, a trial court administrator, a jury coordinator, a professor of criminal justice, members of The Florida Bar, a former state senator, and four former jurors, one from a high-profile case. This Committee identified and reviewed, among other things, the current use of juries, issues facing jury managers, accessibility issues, and proposals for jury improvement and innovations in other states.

The Committee began its task with the challenge not to adhere to the status quo but instead to advocate reform and innovations. After reviewing every aspect of our jury system, the Committee ultimately submitted a final report to this Court containing comprehensive recommendations for improving Florida's jury system. After considering the Committee's final report, the Court referred, either for implementation or for consideration and recommendation, a number of the Jury Innovations Committee's recommendations to the Civil Procedure Rules Committee, the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee, the Rules of Judicial Administration Committee, the Committee on Standard Jury Instructions—Criminal (Criminal Jury Instructions Committee), the Committee on Standard Jury Instructions—Civil (Civil Jury Instructions Committee), and the Code and Rules of Evidence Committee. In re Final Report of Jury Innovations Committee, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC03-041 (Oct.17, 2003). The Court later referred one of the Committee's recommendations to the Criminal Court Steering Committee for implementation. Specifically, the recommendations that were referred to one or more committees were as follows:

Standardized Juror Questionnaires
Pre-voir dire questionnaires are desirable and beneficial. Model questionnaires *180 should be developed for both civil and criminal cases, enabling lawyers to have a preview of jurors' backgrounds. In-court voir dire can then be limited to case-specific inquiries (subject to reasonable time limitations imposed by the court) and any follow-up questions necessary to clarify written answers.
Questions by Jurors
Jurors in both civil and criminal trials should be permitted to submit to the judge written questions to be asked of witnesses by the judge. The judge has the discretion to determine which jury questions are to be asked of witnesses. The Supreme Court should incorporate this right into the rules of civil and criminal procedure.
Note-Taking by Jurors
Jurors in both civil and criminal trials should be permitted to take notes and be advised they may do so. This right should be incorporated into the rules of civil and criminal procedure. Such rules would clarify that juror notes may be taken with them from the courtroom to the jury room. These notes may be shared with other jurors, but must be destroyed after the verdict is delivered. Appropriate jury instructions must be given.
Juror Notebooks
Juror notebooks, which can serve a useful function (especially in civil cases) in lengthy and complex trials, should be specifically authorized by court rule.
Juror Time Management
American Bar Association (ABA) Standard 13: Juror Use should be adopted as a rule of judicial administration.[1]
Written Jury Instructions
Copies of the written jury instructions should be given to jurors for their use during deliberations.
Final Instructions Before Closing Arguments
Judges should be encouraged to deliver their final instructions to the jury before closing arguments.
Judicial Answers to Deliberating Jurors' Questions
Trial judges should be as responsive as possible and fully answer deliberating jurors' questions, consistent with applicable case law. The trial judge, when possible, should not ask jurors to rely on their "collective memory" when the judge is faced with questions from a deliberating jury, but rather respond more directly to their inquiries.
Read-Back of Testimony
The Supreme Court should develop specific criteria for denying a read-back request. Such criteria could include relevant factors, such as whether the requested testimony is too lengthy or too vague.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In Re Amendments to Rules of Civ. Procedure, 967 So. 2d 178, 2007 WL 2873349 (Fla. 2007).

967 So. 2d 178 (In Re Amendments to Rules of Civ. Procedure) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Tavon Graham v. State of Florida
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2026
Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Duignan
243 So. 3d 426 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
In Re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES—REPORT NO. 2014-05
157 So. 3d 1027 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2015)
In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases—Report 2012-07
122 So. 3d 302 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2013)
State v. Barrow
91 So. 3d 826 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2012)
Hazuri v. State
91 So. 3d 836 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2012)
Douglas v. State
141 So. 3d 107 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2012)
Frasilus v. State
46 So. 3d 1028 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
Wicklow v. State
43 So. 3d 85 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
In Re Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases—Report No. 09-01
35 So. 3d 666 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2010)
Barrientos v. State
1 So. 3d 1209 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)