This is the story all about a COVID-era jury trial in LA

Sometimes the stars simply align. In the end, this was such an occasion. But it was a long and rocky road to that end.

Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse Department S-13 is an "all-purpose assignment" unlawful detainer courtroom, handling unlawful detainers on Mondays and Wednesdays. Tuesday, Thursday and Friday are small claims calendars. Therefore, pre-COVID jury trials were scheduled in the afternoons and conducted every day of the week after the regular calendar was handled in the morning. That changed in the COVID-19 era.

This is the story of Los Angeles County's first COVID-era civil jury trial from its very rocky start in the pre-COVID era through the successful completion of a civil jury trial during the COVID pandemic. The plaintiff brought an unlawful detainer action in October 2019. The suit arose from a six-month, fixed-term commercial lease. The tenant had not paid the August or September rent. A first jury trial commenced in late November 2019 only to be interrupted by Defendants' removal of the action to federal court. Yet another jury trial commenced in late January 2020 to again be interrupted by Defendants' bankruptcy filings. And then COVID hit delaying the matter for many months and creating new and substantial impediments to conducting a jury trial.

Pursuant to the general shutdown order, the court was authorized to begin unlawful detainer trials commencing Oct. 5, 2020. With the bankruptcies dismissed in the spring, this case was reset for trial on that date. When all parties reported for trial on Oct. 5 the court evaluated when it could order the jury and conduct the trial. Oct. 6, a small claims day, looked like a candidate. On that date there were only 14 small claims matter on the calendar spread out in three time slots. It looked like a good opportunity to squeeze in Los Angeles County's first socially distanced COVID-19 era civil jury trial.

The Courtroom

Small claims cases in the COVID era are scheduled in four time slots during the day. A maximum of five small claims cases are set in each time slot. The court's calendar had five cases filed by the city of Long Beach scheduled for 8:30 a.m. and another four city of Long Beach cases on the 10:30 a.m. calendar. The city of Long Beach is a major customer of the Long Beach small claims department. Their cases largely involve unpaid utility bills which are rarely contested by defendants. I guessed that the 8:30 and 10:30 calendars could easily be concluded in 15 minutes each, and that we could anticipate one or two people appearing. Therefore a 9 a.m. start of the jury trial was feasible, even with social distancing. The second group of four city of Long Beach cases at 10:30 could be heard during the jury's morning break.

When the court announced that we would order a jury panel of 18 prospective jurors for 9 a.m. my judicial assistant gave me a glare of incredulity. She had not yet been informed what she must do to administratively check-in a jury. That had always been done in the jury room. I simply told her that we would figure out what we needed to do. After all, we had over 20 hours to prepare.

The Jurors

So how does the judicial assistant check in the prospective jurors and bring them into the courtroom? We had been provided a diagram of socially distanced available seats and all were appropriately marked for jurors and others. But since we had never before checked in jurors and collected their forms, the first step of the morning was chaotic.

Five jurors could be seated in or near the jury box. Nine other jurors could be dispersed around the public area behind counsel. In advance of the jury arriving we had placed large numbers on each available seat, 1-14.

My judicial assistant brought each juror into the courtroom and showed each where to sit by number. This resulted in jurors socially distanced throughout the courtroom, with counsel and clients in the middle at counsel table.

Once 14 jurors were inside the courtroom the court addressed them by providing them not only the typical introductory comments, but also information on how the court was working to keep them safe and socially distanced. They were advised that the trial was predicted to take only one day once we had a jury. When asked if any jurors claimed "hardship" no claims were made. We moved quickly to voir dire.

After getting the basic information from each juror that the court routinely obtains from a one-page questionnaire that they verbally answer, the attorneys questioned the jurors. They were uncommonly quick in their questioning. We quickly reached the point of for-cause challenges and the court met with the attorneys in the hallway behind the courtroom.

One juror was challenged for cause. It was granted. We were down to 13 prospective jurors. The court advised the attorneys that as soon as we were down to 11 jurors we were done for the day. The attorneys were urged to seriously consider using the stipulation regarding jury trial that the court had prepared and agree to a smaller jury.

The court had prepared the form of stipulation with a couple of alternatives, including allowing the parties to come up with their own number of jurors.

While still in the hallway, the attorneys informed the court that each intended to use only one peremptory and that they were prepared to stipulate to a 10-person jury with one alternate.

Before the morning break we already were ready to seat our 10-person, one alternate jury. The jurors were sworn.

Magically we avoided what the court feared was to be the most difficult aspect of a COVID-19 era trial -- moving enough potential jurors into the courtroom socially distanced to conduct the voir dire process and ultimately seat a jury. (In other words, I have no words of wisdom on how one can do that other than strongly suggesting a stipulation to a reduced number of jurors.)

We kept each juror in the same seat with their original number designation that each had originally occupied. This minimized the contact that jurors had with multiple spaces in the courtroom. It also meant that we did not move jurors into the best location for observing the trial. I would not do this this way again, as it is preferable to have the jurors located in a better configuration for observing the witnesses and exhibits.

(If the attorneys had chosen to exercise more peremptory challenges without stipulating to a reduce jury size, it was my intent that as soon as we were down to 11 prospective jurors we would adjourn for a day and order a second panel for the next day in the morning. The first panel would then return in the afternoon. The court would allow voir dire of the second panel and then allow peremptory challenges of the entire two panels. Hence, the attorneys would be exercising challenges with the first 11 jurors not present in the courtroom.)

The court read the jury the pre-instructions prior to the 10:30 a.m. break. The jurors were allowed a 20-minute break. At that time, the court turned to its small claims calendar. Four more city of Long Beach cases were resolved.

The plaintiff called one witness and put on its prima facie case. There were a total of three exhibits used, the lease, the three-day notice to pay or quit and the proof of service of the three-day notice.

The Evidence

The case had been prepared for jury trial for many months and notebooks of exhibits had been delivered long ago. This allowed the court to provide a "clean" exhibit notebook for the witness stand. But multiple witnesses might use the same one set. Therefore, to eliminate handling of exhibits, all exhibits were presented by use of the document camera projecting exhibits onto the large wall screen.

Unlawful detainer cases usually have a very limited number of exhibits, and this case involved only three exhibits. The court requested that the parties stipulate to the authenticity and admissibility if there was no genuine dispute. They stipulated to all exhibits. This simplified issues of exhibit handling as all exhibits could be projected onto the screen for all to see.

In Department S-13 there is a large screen on the wall opposite the jury box. Jurors located in the jury box have a straight-on view. Only three jurors were in the jury box. Jurors in the public area had a view that was less optimal, in some cases at an extreme angle to the screen.

The defense involved one witness, the named defendant. Like everyone else in the courtroom he was masked. But unlike all the other masks in the courtroom, his was a gas mask. It did muffle his speech a bit.

Plaintiff presented rebuttal testimony from its one witness, and the parties rested.

The court gave the jury instructions, and we broke at 12:15 p.m. The jury was instructed to return at 2:15 p.m. They had earned a long lunch. And the court had five small claims cases to address at 1:30 p.m. Only one actually required a trial, so it was easily accommodated in the half hour set aside to conduct the 1:30 p.m. calendar.

Then back to the jury trial. Each side had one attorney and one client. This presented a challenge for which I have no particular insights. Counsel and parties were instructed to maintain maximum social distance. But they need to periodically confer. Passing notes is not always adequate.

At 2:15 p.m. the jurors returned, and the attorneys presented closing argument. Because of social distancing, the jurors were spread throughout the courtroom, and the attorneys were arguing to an audience that nearly circled them.

The Deliberation

At 3:35 p.m. the bailiff was sworn and took charge of the jurors. At 3:45 p.m. the jurors were in their deliberation room. (There were no small claims cases on the 3 p.m. small claims calendar.)

In the Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse we have converted two empty courtrooms to be used as jury deliberation rooms as a standard jury room is too small to socially distance a jury. The jury deliberation courtroom had been outfitted with a document camera and flat screen TV to allow one juror to handle all exhibits and display them for all to see.

The jury buzzed at 3:58 p.m. to announce that it had a verdict. Judgment for the plaintiff. Unanimous on all questions.

The entire jury trial was commenced at approximately 9:00 a.m. and concluded before the close of business at 4:30 p.m. And 14 small cases were addressed as well. All concluded. And Los Angeles County had concluded its first COVID era civil jury trial. 