Courts, Like Employers, Call Audibles on Vaccines

23 August 2021 Blog
Author(s): Paul R. Monsees
Published To: Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Coronavirus Resource Center:Back to Business

State and federal courts shut down all in-person operations in March 2020 based on the COVID-19 health emergency. Since then, many have struggled to reschedule the significant backlog of jury trials. While most courts adopted virtual platforms for motions proceedings, conferences and nonjury hearings, few courts impaneled juries because of the health risks of exposing court personnel, parties and large groups of potential jurors, as well as their families, to infection. With the rapid rise and spread of the delta variant, and the alarming increase in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations, courts are having to adapt again to try and keep jury trials on track. 

One California federal court recently dealt with a COVID-19 infection during the trial and had to dismiss the jury for a day upon learning that a witness expected to testify that day tested positive. Since counsel who were assisting, but not conducting, the trial were exposed to that person, the court was able to resume the schedule after taking adequate precautions.

In Ohio, a federal judge issued an order requiring that all potential jurors be vaccinated. The defendants asked the judge to reconsider that decision and he agreed, accepting that there could be issues with selecting a representative jury and noting that the disparities in access to and acceptance of vaccines could cause a jury to be “less likely to reflect a fair cross-section of the community.” There has been more commentary about that concern recently. If vaccination is mandated for the jury pool, it is distinctly possible that jurors of certain racial, economic, political or other backgrounds could be excluded, thus raising the issue whether a jury would truly be of one’s peers.

Other courts have adopted masking and other strategies in lieu of vaccination. For example, the highest Maryland court issued orders effective August 9, 2021, mandating masks and social distancing for any unvaccinated members of the public, including jurors, who enter a Maryland courthouse. Among other issues, mask and social distancing requirements present logistical problems for the courtroom, requiring that jurors be spread out and not limited to sitting in the jury box, which could have the spillover effect of limiting public access to court proceedings. In response to that concern, some courts have begun streaming trials and substantive hearings, at least by audio.

Courts will grapple with these issues as they try to keep case schedules on track while balancing protection for the public during this latest COVID-19 surge. Civil and criminal litigants have already had their rights affected by delays in numerous substantive proceedings and the courts will continue to examine strategies to keep the wheels of justice turning safely.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services