San Francisco, CA commercial litigation attorney Edward Hugo discusses his experience in trials that require social distancing. He states that he was assigned to the first socially distanced civil trial in San Francisco and often describes the unique setup. Outside the courthouse, The Honorable Harold Khan demonstrated a transparent mask, part of the court and counsel’s concept that potential jurors would wear masks allowing their facial expressions and mannerisms to remain visible during voir dire. The traditional jury box, designed to hold 24 people, could accommodate only three under distancing protocols. As a result, the remaining jurors were spread throughout the courtroom, including in the back rows.
He was also assigned to the first socially distanced civil trial in Alameda County. Originally scheduled in Oakland, the case was moved to Hayward due to courtroom size limitations. In Hayward, monitors were installed so jurors could see proceedings from various positions. Again, the jury box could hold only a fraction of the seated jurors, with the rest socially distanced throughout the courtroom.
The greatest challenge in a socially distanced trial, he notes, is persuading jurors when you cannot see all of them simultaneously. Lawyers often have to break the traditional rule of never turning their back on a juror, simply because of their placement. Observing reactions and gauging attention is significantly limited, so he must concentrate on each juror individually, for a limited time.
The only slight advantage to such trials, he observes, is that inattentive jurors are easier to identify, which can matter in certain cases. Beyond that, socially distanced trials present more challenges than benefits.
He emphasizes that lawyers facing a socially distanced trial need to visit the courtroom early and often to understand juror positioning, sightlines, and audibility. Presentations may require multiple monitors, large screens, or sound projection systems to ensure all jurors can see and hear the proceedings. Ultimately, he asserts, the responsibility for engaging and persuading the jury rests entirely with the lawyer, not the court or municipality.
