ILLINOIS JURORS SHOULD BE NEUTRAL FACT-FINDERS, NOT ADVOCATES
On May 20, 2011, the Illinois Supreme Court Rules Committee will discuss whether or not to codify a new Illinois Supreme Court Rule which would change juror participation by permitting jurors to question witnesses during the trial process.
The proposed Rule would look like this (according to the Illinois Supreme Court website):
(a) Questions Permitted. The court may permit jurors in civil cases to submit to the court written questions to be posed to witnesses.(b) Objections. Out of the presence of the jury but on the record, the court will read, or
provide a copy of the questions to all counsel and give counsel an opportunity to object to the question. If any objections are made, the court will rule upon the objections at that time and the question submitted by the juror will be either allowed to be read as written, allowed to be read as modified, or excluded.(c) Questioning the Witness. If the question is allowed as written or as modified, the court or counsel will read the juror’s question to the witness in the jury’s presence, and the witness will answer the question. The court will then provide all counsel with an opportunity to ask follow-up questions limited to the scope of the new testimony.
(d) Admonishment to Jurors. At times before or during the trial that the court deems
appropriate, the court shall advise the jurors that they shall not concern themselves with the reason for the exclusion or modification of any question submitted and that such measures are taken by the court in accordance with the rules of evidence that govern the case.
Having tried cases for over twenty years, I believe that Illinois attorneys should tread carefully in this area as the proposed rule could shatter the principle of juror neutrality. If codified, it will effectively inject jurors into the position of advocate versus a neutral fact-finder. From a practical standpoint, it also invites jurors to deliberate prematurely. For these reasons, the Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Kroll disapproves of the proposed rule.
