Tag: King County Superior Court

Courts, criminal justice

King County Superior Court Wants to Make Virtual Jury Selection—and Trials—Permanent

 

King County Courthouse
Image via King County.

By Paul Kiefer

The instructions that accompany a jury summons in King County changed dramatically when the COVID-19 pandemic upended court operations: instead of directions to a courthouse, jurors now receive an email from a bailiff with a video link. Now, King County Superior Court judges say that the switch to virtual jury selection—originally adopted as an emergency measure—is too useful to abandon once the pandemic winds down.

In a bid to make the change permanent, King County Superior Court staff are petitioning the Washington State Supreme Court to continue using video calls for jury selections once the state’s emergency order expires.

For Judge Sean O’Donnell, the shift to virtual jury selections is a matter of efficiency. Before the pandemic, he said, the response rate to jury summons was abysmal; as a consequence, the court had to delay trials until it had enough qualified jurors to fill a bench. “When you got a summons, you had to make the trek to a courthouse, wait in a hallway in case your name was called, file into a courtroom and go through questioning—it could take a full day,” he said.

Online jury selection, he added, only takes an hour. “I think for judiciary, this has to be the future,” O’Donnell said. “The convenience factor is huge. The physical safety benefits, in comparison coming down to the courthouse on Third Avenue with all the chaos nearby, are huge. If we can just reduce the footprint of citizens who have to physically come down, we can make performing your civic duty more attainable for more people.”

The virtual hearing, O’Donnell added, also gives attorneys more time to question prospective jurors. “We’ve been able to increase the quantity of information we collect from jurors, and that helps attorneys make calls about who is or is not appropriate to serve on a jury,” he said.

But for some attorneys navigating virtual jury selection, the new setup isn’t perfect. “I’ve found it a bit more difficult to get people to open up,” said Brent Hart, a Seattle defense attorney who recently took part in a virtual jury selection. “For some reason, it seems like it’s harder to get people to unmute than it is to get them to raise their hand in a courtroom.”

And while Hart agrees that the virtual jury selection process can streamline court proceedings, he added that attorneys have a harder time reading potential jurors’ behavior through a computer screen. “If someone’s doing legal research, looking up stuff about a case that they shouldn’t be looking up, we can’t tell,” he said. “We don’t actually have eyes on them—only the illusion of eyes on them.”

But both O’Donnell and Hart agreed that a more efficient jury selection process will play an important role in working through the superior court’s looming backlog of criminal cases. “We have thousands and thousands of criminal cases—some very serious—that have stacked up during the pandemic,” O’Donnell said, “and being able to select juries faster has helped.”

For now, jurors selected for criminal trials usually need to attend court hearings in person, but the superior court is also petitioning the state to make virtual civil trials a permanent feature of King County’s judicial system. The supreme court won’t rule on the two requests until next year.

Courts, Elections, homelessness, housing

Homeless Advocates Challenge Compassion Seattle Ballot Measure

By Erica C. Barnett

Advocates for people experiencing homelessness challenged the ballot title for the “Compassion Seattle” initiative in King County Superior Court on Thursday, arguing that the short description of the proposal—which is what Seattle voters would see on their ballots in November—is inaccurate and “prejudicial” because it implies that the measure would guarantee new funding for housing and homeless services when it does not, among other reasons.

The petition, filed by Real Change, the Transit Riders Union, Nickelsville, and Be:Seattle, makes several key points. First, the groups argue that the ballot language—which says the measure would require the city to “dedicate minimum 12% of the annual general fund revenue to homelessness and human services”—inaccurately implies an increase in funding for homelessness, when in fact the 12 percent would go to human services in general, which currently make up about 11 percent of the city’s general-fund budget.

“Requiring twelve percent of the general fund to be placed in [a new] ‘Human Services Fund may not add any funding to homelessness services,” the petition says.

“To put [encampment removals] in the statement of subject, which is those first ten words [of the ballot title], is inflammatory, which is prejudicial,” said Knoll Lowney, the attorney for the advocates.

Second, they argue that language saying the charter amendment “concerns actions to address homelessness and keep areas clear of encampments” is misleading because it implies that the initiative will keep the city clear of encampments, when the measure actually says the city will balance homeless residents’ interests against the city’s interest in having encampment-free parks and public spaces.

“To put [encampment removals] in the statement of subject, which is those first ten words [of the ballot title], is inflammatory, which is prejudicial,” said Knoll Lowney, the attorney for the advocates.

Compassion Seattle has consistently argued that the initiative, which began as a sweeps-focused measure that evolved to include aspirational language about ensuring that people have access to shelter or housing, does not require sweeps. By taking proponents at their word—that is, by conceding their point that the proposal is actually designed to house people so no one will need to live in public—advocates are essentially arguing that the proponents of the initiative are relying on prejudice against homeless people to sell the measure.

The advocates also argue that the ballot title is misleading in another way: Rather than requiring “action,” as the short description implies, its primary impact would be imposing new policies and performance standards on programs, which could end up having a bigger impact than aspirational language about encampments or vague funding promises. For example, the proposed amendment says would make it official city “policy to make available emergency and permanent housing to those living unsheltered.” Continue reading “Homeless Advocates Challenge Compassion Seattle Ballot Measure” →