voirDireinCoviD-19timesAnDBeYonD
Trial & litigation Section
Continuedfrompage56
a 45-minute per side time limit to question potential jurors . 4 The appellate court reasoned that with 19 potential jurors , the court ’ s limit allowed only 1.5 minutes per juror ; an abuse of discretion as a matter of law . The court acknowledged a trial judge has authority to control argumentative and repetitive voir dire . But , it held , that authority should not be used to interfere with counsel ’ s legitimate right to ascertain patent or concealed pre-judgments by prospective jurors .
Many courts have noted that time limits must be reasonable and “ flex with the circumstances .” The Fourth DCA in Hopkins v . State , reversed a murder conviction , holding that limiting voir dire to 3 hours per side in a complex , high stakes case was an abuse of discretion . 5 While reasonable limitations on voir dire might be merited in these unusual COVID-19 times , once the safety concerns are lifted , so should any rigid time limitations . Even during times like the Delta variant surge , any time limitations imposed must flex with the circumstances of the case so that the important right to reasonable voir dire is preserved . n
1
Rule 1.431 , Fla . R . Civ . Pro .
2
Williams v . State , 424 So . 2d 148 , 149 ( Fla . 5th DCA 1982 ).
3
Miller v . State , 785 So . 2d 662 ( Fla . 3rd DCA 2001 ).
4
920 So . 2d 123 ( Fla . 4th DCA 2006 ). 5
223 So . 3d 285 ( Fla . 4th DCA 2017 ) ( citing Perry v . State , 534 So . 2d 912 ( Fla . 3rd DCA 1988 )), ( holding 1-3 minutes per prospective juror is unreasonable and an abuse of discretion as a matter of law ). See also Strachan v . State , 279 So . 2d 1231 ( Fla . 4th DCA 2019 ) (“ Inflexibility in the amount of time provided for voir dire is not a wise path upon which to continue to travel .”).
Author : Charles T . Moore – Morgan & Morgan
N O V - D E C 2 0 2 1 | H C B A L A W Y E R 5 7