Trial Lawyer

On March 4, 2021 Judge Grant provided additional guidance on the Judiciary’s plans for in person jury trials for the remainder of the year. Judge Grant’s memo notes that the judiciary has been closely monitoring the Covid numbers in an attempt to discern whether or not it is appropriate to start criminal and civil jury trials, in person, again. Notably, as of March 1st 2021, the statewide 14 day average showed a twelve percent decrease in deaths and a twenty-four percent decrease in hospitalizations. However, the new case count has increased by three percent. Despite the amount of new cases, Judge Grant’s memo notes that the figure is still less than one-half of the number of new cases reported at the start of 2021.

Encouraged by these numbers, Judge Grant explains that vicinage judges will continue to conference civil cases for trials with the understanding that virtual civil jury trials will proceed on April 5, 2021. Moreover, courts are directed to conference the significant number of active criminal cases with the expectation that those matters will be tried, once in-person jury trials resume.

Having legal representation that stays on top of the guidance issued by the judiciary is incredibly important. Additionally, having counsel who is ready, willing and able to try cases in either format gives your case its best chance. At our law office, we have successfully tried cases in both a digital and in-person format. During a consultation, it is my practice to provide guidance to the client as to whether or not their situation would best be handled in person or digitally.

In State v. Damon Williams the court was confronted with the issue of whether or not the prosecutor’s use of a photo of Jack Nicholson in the movie The Shining was inappropriate.

In Williams the defendant walked into a local bank branch and engaged a young female bank teller. The defendant then lowered his body so that he was at eye level with the teller and passed her a note instructing her to provide all of the cash in her drawer. In an attempt at mitigating the bank’s losses, the teller attempted to place a GPS traceable package of twenty-dollar bills in the defendant’s bag. The defendant caught on to the teller’s attempt and instructed her not to do so. During the entirety of this interaction the defendant did not threaten force, nor did he brandish any weapons. Upon the defendant’s exit, the bank teller set off the alarm.

The disputed trial issue was whether or not the defendant committed this act with force or the threat of force and whether or not said actions put the bank teller in fear of immediate injury. The defense argued it did not and that the jury should merely consider the offense a theft (i.e. exercising unlawful control over the moveable property of another.)

Articles Posted in Trial Lawyer

Judiciary Update on Prospective Jury Trials during the Covid-19 Pandemic

Supreme Court Reverses Robbery Conviction Based on Prosecutor’s Improper Use of Power Point