PERSONAL INJURY CORNER
Limiting Time for Voir Dire
TED BABBITT
It has become popular of late for trial judges to strictly limit the time counsel may take for selection of a jury by conducting voir dire . Trial judges are relying on recent cases which seem to emphasize the warning time that counsel have before they begin to question jurors on voir dire examination . This is not a new concept . In Rodriguez vs . State ; 675 So . 2d 189 ( Fla . 3d DCA 1996 ), the original trial judge warned the prosecution and defense counsel that voir dire would be limited to 45 minutes each in a case alleging armed robbery and trespass . This warning occurred 6 months prior to the selection of the jury . After defense counsel had utilized 45 minutes the court announced that counsel could have only 5 more minutes to complete voir dire . After conviction the appeal resulted in a reversal based in part upon the appellate court ’ s view that the warning , only 5 minutes before voir dire was to conclude , was not reasonable notice . The appellant in that case did not argue that the trial court did not have authority to limit the amount of voir dire but instead argued that if a limit was going to be set attorneys had to be given reasonable notice in order to properly pace the timing of the voir dire examination .
In Strachan vs . State ; 279 So . 3d 1231 ( Fla . 4th DCA 2019 ), the appellate court reversed in part based upon its conclusion that the trial court unreasonably limited the defendant ’ s voir dire . The trial court allowed 55 minutes to conduct the voir dire and the appellate court found that the defense counsel had used that 55 minutes very wisely and that the trial court erred when it refused to provide additional time to question the jurors concerning their understanding of the defendant ’ s constitutional rights even though the trial court claimed that it had gone over those issues . The State urged the trial court to allow the defendant additional time in order to aide the trial court in avoiding error .
In Guy vs . State ; 287 So . 3d 620 ( Fla . 4th DCA 2019 ) the trial court limited the parties to
90 minutes each for voir dire and allowed an additional 10 minutes after that time expired . In reviewing the conviction of the defendant the appellate court found that defense counsel had not used his time wisely and spent most of the 90 minutes talking about gun safety even after the court twice reminded counsel that that subject had been exhausted and that time would be better spent on other areas . The appellate court found that this was a tactical decision on the part of defense counsel that resulted in misuse of the time allotted and it was therefor not error to cut off the voir dire 10 minutes after the original allotted time had expired .
No one argues that the trial court does not have discretion to limit the amount of time for voir dire and that such limitation may well escape a reversal if sufficient notice is given to counsel as to the limitation . Nevertheless the more important question is whether , given that selection of a jury is probably the most important thing that counsel does in the conduct of a trial and that selecting a fair and impartial jury should be the paramount goal of everyone , whether such limitation is wise .
In Tomany , supra ; at 257 , Judge Gerber , writing for the 4th District said , “ This opinion should not be read to suggest that inflexibility in the amount of time provided for voir dire is a wise path upon which to continue to travel . A brief extension of time would have been far less than the many hours with which both sides appellate counsel spent on this appeal , and many days less than the amount of time which would have been necessary to try this case again if we decided to reverse .”
Trial judges have to ask themselves whether the hour or two or even day or two necessary to ensure a fair and impartial jury is not time well spent ? The goal of any trial is not to conclude it in the least time possible . It is to ensure that a fair and impartial jury is selected and that appropriate evidence is submitted to them so that a fair verdict is obtained . Limitation
on voir dire is a serious impediment to selection of a fair and impartial jury and while each case must be looked at on a case by case basis , trial judges should have a strong reluctance to limit voir dire to an arbitrary amount of time , even if adequate notice is given to the attorneys as to what that time will be .
Theodore Babbitt , Attorney-Shareholder , Florida Bar Board Certified Trial Lawyer at Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley , P . A . He can be reached at Tbabbitt @ searcylaw . com .
LEADING PRACTICE MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE 10 % Discount for Bar Members
You can access your firm from anywhere — at any time — with Clio ’ s mobile app . Bring your matters , documents , notes , and calendar with you wherever you go , all on your mobile device . And , take 10 % off all Clio products with your exclusive Palm Beach County Bar Association member discount .
Visit www . clio . com / pbcbar to learn more and use promo code PBCBAR to claim your discount .
PBCBA BAR BULLETIN 16