Colorado Supreme Court Upholds Tenants' Constitutional Right to Jury Trials in Eviction Cases
The Colorado Supreme Court reviewed the case of Mercy Housing Management Group Inc. v. Naomi Bermudez to address whether Bermudez was entitled to a jury trial on factual disputes in a forcible entry and detainer (FED) case. Bermudez, a low-income tenant, was served with a notice to vacate her federally subsidized housing for alleged lease violations. She requested a jury trial, asserting factual disputes about the alleged violations. The lower court denied her request, claiming no constitutional right to a jury trial in civil cases under Colorado law.
The supreme court reversed the lower court's decision. It ruled that Colorado law and procedural rules, including C.R.C.P. 338(a) and the relevant FED statute, clearly provide tenants with the right to a jury trial on factual disputes in FED-possession actions. The court emphasized that such disputes are legal in nature and trace back to common-law principles of ejectment, which historically permitted jury trials.
The court addressed concerns about the practicality of jury trials in high-volume FED cases, noting that many cases do not proceed to trial due to settlements, waivers, or lack of disputes. It found that the limited number of eligible cases and existing procedural tools would mitigate any potential strain on the judicial system. Ultimately, the court remanded the case for a jury trial on the factual disputes, underscoring the importance of ensuring tenants’ rights under the law. The Colorado Supreme Court also recently announced it will review the right to a jury trial in child welfare cases.
NCSC’s Eviction Diversion Initiative (EDI) grant program offers state and local courts funding to hire dedicated court staff and receive technical assistance to update eviction court procedures.
Boston Law Journal Article Explores the Balance Between Jury Secrecy and Fair Trial Rights
In an article published by the Boston College Law Review, author Jessica Parillo delves into the complex interplay between maintaining the confidentiality of jury deliberations and addressing misconduct that could undermine a defendant’s right to a fair trial.
Often referred to as the "black box," the secrecy of jury deliberations is an integral part of democratic justice, shielding jurors from external influence and promoting candid discussions. However, the study’s author believes this confidentiality can sometimes obscure problematic behavior or evidence mishandling during deliberations, leaving courts to navigate a difficult balance—especially when “experiments” in the jury room take place.
The article uses the case of Samuel Fields to illustrate how juror experimentation with physical evidence raised constitutional concerns. Courts across the U.S. have struggled with these issues, as the Supreme Court has yet to offer definitive guidance. While some argue for revising "no-impeachment" rules that bar jurors from testifying about deliberations, the article suggests a more preventive approach. It advocates for pre-verdict safeguards, such as detailed jury instructions and attorney vigilance, to ensure jurors adhere to their responsibilities without compromising deliberation confidentiality. This thoughtful exploration underscores the importance of safeguarding both jury independence and defendants’ constitutional protections in the justice system.
Public-Sector Executive Director Calls for Supporting Jurors in Trauma-Exposing Trials
Writing for the Morning Call, a Lehigh Valley Tribune publication, Maraleen D. Shields, executive director of the Pennsylvania Interbranch Commission for Gender, Racial, and Ethnic Fairness, attended the trial of Spartak A. Fedorovich in Lehigh County to better understand the impact of vicarious trauma on jurors. The case involved harrowing allegations of grooming and sexual assault of a minor, requiring jurors to confront distressing evidence, including explicit videos and testimony. Shields noted the emotional toll jurors endure, compounded by minimal compensation and the inability to opt out of these challenging responsibilities.
Judge Robert L. Steinberg took deliberate measures to protect jurors, such as limiting the video evidence shown, closing the courtroom, and giving instructions to ensure jurors based their verdict on the law rather than emotions. However, Shields acknowledged the profound difficulty of bearing witness to such evidence and the lasting emotional impact it can have.
The Pennsylvania Interbranch Commission has been working to address juror mental health by recommending the provision of written resources on managing potential juror stress. COSCA's Citizens on Call: Responding to the Needs of 21st Century Jurors 2023 report suggests distributing posttrial pamphlets to help jurors process their experiences. This initiative is part of a broader effort to acknowledge and mitigate the effects of vicarious trauma on jurors. The case underscores the need for judicial systems to prioritize the mental well-being of jurors, particularly in cases involving traumatic evidence, as part of ensuring a fair and supportive trial process.
NCSC and the Center for Jury Studies have published information on helping jurors cope with stress factor in and outside the courtroom.
Judging Juries: A Critical Examination of Equity in Jury Service
The Center for Jury Studies recently hosted a private screening of Judging Juries during a webinar, where attendees explored the critical issues raised in the film about equity and inclusion in the jury system.
Directed by the renowned Abby Ginzberg, the documentary brought to light the systemic barriers that hinder participation in jury service, particularly for individuals from marginalized communities. A panel discussion following the webinar underscored the film’s relevance in addressing the pressing need for reforms, such as increasing juror compensation to promote more diverse and representative jury pools.
As the conversation about Judging Juries continues, new reviews and commentary have highlighted its broader national significance in the context of criminal justice reform. The film's focus on local successes, like San Francisco’s “Be the Jury” program, and its ripple effects across the country, serve as an example of how courts nationwide can adopt innovative approaches to ensure fairness and equity in jury service. For those who participated in the webinar, this is an opportunity to revisit the film's impact and reflect on how the lessons from it might shape future reforms in our legal system.