The Texas Supreme Court on Friday agreed with two parties on opposite sides of a dispute headed for trial and held that a Harris County district judge who tried to compel them to a remote jury trial despite their agreed objection was out of line.
The state’s high court issued its ruling in the case without hearing oral argument. Jenna East, who is the plaintiff in the underlying automobile crash lawsuit before Harris County District Judge Dedra Davis, and Owen J. Merrell, the underlying defendant, appealed to the Texas Supreme Court in the wake of a July 8 ruling from the First Court of Appeals in Houston that denied their requested relief without explaining why.
In a brief order, the Texas Supreme Court directed Judge Davis to vacate her June 21 ruling overruling the agreed objection to the remote jury trial.
“The district court’s decision to deny the agreed objection was arbitrary and unreasonable, and thus an abuse of discretion, in light of its failure to state good cause, either on the record or in a response requested by this court,” the court held.
A July 12 notice issued by the court requested a response from Judge Davis, according to court records, but one was never received.
Three prominent trial lawyer organizations — the Texas Trial lawyers Association, the Texas Chapters of the American Board of Trial Advocates and the Texas Association of Defense Counsel — filed individual amicus briefs in the case, arguing the remote proceedings were unconstitutional.
The TTLA told the court in its Aug. 10 brief that under the 52nd Emergency order issued by the court in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the trial court must ensure “that all potential and selected petit jurors have access to technology to participate remotely.” And Texas lawmakers have passed legislation requiring that remote jury trial be agreed to by both parties, the TTLA wrote, but Judge Davis “disregarded these guiding principles when she ordered a virtual trial over the joint objection of all parties.”
TEX-ABOTA argued that two major issues were at stake in the case: a citizen’s constitutional right to serve on a jury and litigants’ constitutional right to a jury “free of bias, drawn from a fair cross-section of all potential jurors who are eligible to serve.”
Judge Davis’ order, the group said, “unconstitutionally narrows the eligible jurors who would otherwise be entitled to serve in a in-person trial” because remote jurors are required to have access to certain technology to participate.
TADC raised concerns in its brief about the ability of courts to enforce “the rule” which ensures witnesses don’t hear the testimony of other witnesses by barring them from the courtroom.
Merrell is represented by Kevin G. Cain, Robert T. Owen, Levon G. Hovnatanian, W. Shane Osborn and Krista A. Beerbower of Martin Disiere Jefferson & Wisdom.
East is represented by Kimberly Spurlock of Spurlock & Associates.
The case number is 22-0556.