Supreme Court considers whether juries must determine restitution amounts
Writing for SCOTUSblog “Relist Watch,” John Elwood examines cert petitions relisted by the Supreme Court in its second January conference. During this conference, the Supreme Court is revisiting the role of juries in determining restitution in criminal cases, a question left unresolved by previous rulings on judicial factfinding. Under Apprendi v. New Jersey, any fact that increases a criminal penalty beyond the statutory maximum must be determined by a jury. The Court later extended this principle to criminal fines in Southern Union Co. v. United States. However, lower federal courts have continued to allow judges, rather than juries, to determine restitution amounts.
Justices Neil Gorsuch and Sonia Sotomayor previously dissented when the Court declined to review this issue, arguing that restitution should be treated similarly to fines under Apprendi. The issue has resurfaced in three petitions—Rimlawi v. United States, Shah v. United States, and Jacob v. United States—involving defendants convicted of healthcare fraud and bribery. Their restitution orders, ranging from $40,000 to $76 million, were based on judicial factfinding rather than jury determinations. The justices will now decide whether to grant certiorari and clarify whether juries must find the facts necessary to impose restitution.
New York moves to strengthen juror anonymity protections
New York lawmakers have proposed a bill to define the circumstances under which a juror’s identity can be shielded during criminal trials, building on legislation signed by Governor Kathy Hochul in December. While the law already allows state courts to keep juror names anonymous for good cause, the latest bill outlines specific criteria for determining when anonymity is warranted.
Sponsors of the bill have cited concerns over rising threats against jurors and judges, particularly in high-profile cases. Under the proposed framework, courts may issue protective orders if there is a credible threat to the jury’s safety or integrity. Factors for consideration include past instances of jury tampering, the severity of charges, and the level of pretrial publicity. The bill would prevent public disclosure of jurors’ names and addresses, ensuring their protection while allowing legal teams access to this information.
New Mexico adopts bilingual postcard jury summons, reinforcing commitment to inclusive jury service
New Mexico courts are transitioning to bilingual postcard jury summonses, joining other jurisdictions that have adopted postcards for cost savings and efficiency. However, what sets New Mexico apart is its commitment to language access. Unlike any other state, New Mexico does not disqualify jurors with limited English proficiency (LEP), instead providing interpreters to ensure their full participation in the judicial process. The new postcard summons includes instructions in both English and Spanish.
Beyond LEP jurors, this initiative also aligns with broader efforts to educate the public—including non-citizens and non-English speakers—about the importance of jury service. While non-citizens are not currently eligible to serve, they may become eligible in the future through naturalization. Ensuring that all members of the community understand the significance of jury service and how to respond to a summons can help spread awareness among eligible family and friends, reinforcing the civic duty that is fundamental to a fair and representative justice system.
Chief Justice David K. Thomson highlighted that the change is about more than efficiency. It’s about accessibility by integrating bilingual communication and modernizing the summons process.
View a sample of the new juror postcard: New Mexico Postcard Summons Sample.
Town judge resigns after stating he assumes defendants are guilty
A New York town judge’s attempt to avoid grand jury duty by claiming he couldn’t be fair and impartial has led to his resignation and a permanent ban from the bench. Judge Richard T. Snyder of the Petersburgh Town Court in Rensselaer County told a presiding judge that he should be excused because he is a judge and, more troublingly, because he assumes everyone who appears in his courtroom is guilty. That admission triggered a judicial ethics investigation, which ultimately led to his resignation.
Snyder’s statements, made in October 2023 during the empanelment of a grand jury, reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of both jurors and judges in the justice system. While some people may genuinely struggle with impartiality and should be dismissed from jury service for that reason, it is far more often an excuse used to dodge civic duty. Judges, more than anyone, should uphold the principle that jurors must be fair and objective. Instead, Snyder’s remarks reinforced a troubling stereotype—that some people simply assume guilt from the outset, rather than evaluating evidence.
His comments didn’t just suggest personal bias; they directly undermined public confidence in the judiciary. When pressed by the presiding judge about whether he believed he could be impartial, Snyder flatly admitted, “No. It would not be fair.” The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct took action, concluding that anyone who openly disavows the duty of impartiality has no place serving as a judge. Snyder agreed to resign and never seek judicial office again.
The case serves as a stark reminder that attempting to avoid jury duty with flimsy excuses should not be tolerated. Citizens who try to shirk this essential civic responsibility by claiming they “just can't be fair” should be firmly reminded that such an attitude makes them poor citizens. In Snyder’s case, his excuse was not only unacceptable for a juror—it was disqualifying for a judge.