575 F.Supp.3d 427
S.D.N.Y.2021Background
- Plaintiff David Joffe sued former law firm King & Spalding; a civil jury trial was set for November 2021 after COVID-related delays.
- SDNY implemented COVID-19 safety protocols; the Joffe trial was a pilot in a regular courtroom using 3-foot distancing for vaccinated jurors and 6-foot distancing for any unvaccinated jurors.
- The Court proposed excusing unvaccinated potential jurors for cause under 28 U.S.C. § 1866(c) to reduce health risks and avoid trial disruption; Joffe objected and King & Spalding did not.
- The Court overruled Joffe’s objection, excused one unvaccinated potential juror during voir dire, and the trial proceeded Nov. 15–29, 2021, resulting in a defense verdict.
- The Court found exclusion justified by (1) increased risk of infection/transmission from unvaccinated jurors that could distract jurors or force quarantines, and (2) logistical constraints (courtroom size and distancing) that could force relocation or delay.
- On statutory review, the Court analyzed the JSSA/Duren cross-section challenge and concluded unvaccinated persons are not a "distinctive" group and any underrepresentation would stem from external pandemic forces, not systematic exclusion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court may exclude unvaccinated potential jurors for cause under 28 U.S.C. § 1866(c) as likely to disrupt proceedings | Joffe argued excusing unvaccinated jurors for cause is improper if jurors are willing and impartial; exclusion not justified merely by vaccination status | Exclusion is necessary to protect health, prevent distraction/quarantines, and avoid logistical disruption (courtroom distancing constraints) | Court overruled objection; excusal for cause permissible because unvaccinated jurors posed a real risk of disruption and safety concerns |
| Whether excluding unvaccinated jurors violates JSSA fair cross-section requirement (Duren) | Implicit: exclusion deprives parties of jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community | Exclusion does not violate JSSA because unvaccinated persons are not a cohesive "distinctive" group and pandemic effects are external, not systematic | Court held a JSSA challenge would fail: Duren’s distinctive-group and systematic-exclusion elements not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (establishes three-part fair cross-section test for Duren challenges)
- LaChance v. United States, 788 F.2d 856 (2d Cir.) (applies Duren framework)
- Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162 (discusses what qualifies as a "distinctive" group)
- Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (sets standard for excusing jurors for cause based on bias)
- United States v. Guzman, 337 F. Supp. 140 (S.D.N.Y.) (discussion of characteristics defining a distinctive group)
- United States v. Torres, 128 F.3d 38 (2d Cir.) (juror excusal for cause relating to partiality and bias)
- United States v. Salamone, 800 F.2d 1216 (3d Cir.) (explaining inquiry for excusal for cause based on juror beliefs)