The\u00a0following instructions are provided\u00a0for situations that commonly arise at jury draw or before opening statements:<\/p>\n
CR01-011.\u00a0\u00a0Questions for the jurors<\/a>\u00a0(07\/28\/03).\u00a0 The questions (have you heard anything about the case, etc.)\u00a0might be helpful in a high profile case; they are not necessary in every case.\u00a0 Reasons for inquiry are discussed in State v. Onorato<\/em>, 142 Vt. 99, 105-07 (1982).\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\n CR01-021.\u00a0 Statement about juror note-taking<\/a>\u00a0(06\/01\/07).\u00a0 If jurors are allowed to take notes, the court must give them a brief introduction.\u00a0 See V.R.C.P. 39(e), Reporter’s Notes.\u00a0 The procedures may vary from one court to another.\u00a0 The model instruction is drafted in generic language, because in some cases \u201cthe record\u201d may involve a stenographic recording, whereas in other cases it may involve audiotape or videotape.\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\n CR01-031.\u00a0 Juror prohibitions, including use of electronic devices<\/a>\u00a0(05\/08\/17).\u00a0 The instruction follows the suggestion of\u00a0State v. Abdi<\/span>, 2012 VT 4, \u00b6 25, 191 Vt. 162, and is meant to be read at the beginning of the trial.\u00a0 A shorter version of the instruction for use as part of the jury charge is also included as CR03-051<\/a>. Courts should explicitly instruct the jury not to discuss the case amongst themselves until deliberations begin, along with an instruction not to communicate with others about the case. State Cameron<\/span>, 2016 VT 134, \u00b6\u00b6 32\u201333 nn. 5\u20138. Courts must investigate after learning of the possibility of jury taint. State v. Kandzior<\/u>, 2020 VT 37, \u00b6 27 (\u201cthe failure to investigate possible jury taint and establish an evidentiary basis for determining if the jury was fair and unbiased amounts to plain error\u201d).<\/p>\n CR01-032. Juror Prohibitions, Including Juror Use of Electronic Devices, Upon Separation Following Voir Dire and Before the Start of Trial<\/a> (07\/05\/18). Courts must investigate after learning of the possibility of jury taint. State v. Kandzior<\/u>, 2020 VT 37, \u00b6 27 (\u201cthe failure to investigate possible jury taint and establish an evidentiary basis for determining if the jury was fair and unbiased amounts to plain error\u201d). CR01-501: Interpreters (American Sign Language)<\/a>\u00a0and CR01-511: Interpreters (Spanish or Other Foreign Language)<\/a>\u00a0(12\/05\/05).\u00a0 If a case requires the use of interpreters, the judge must explain their use early in the case.\u00a0 The committee recommends discussing potential issues at least as early as the jury draw.\u00a0 For example, the judge and the attorneys will want to know whether any jurors understand the language that is being interpreted, and some consideration should be given to the potential problem of jurors disagreeing with an interpretation that is given.\u00a0 Instruction CR01-511 may be used as an instruction for any foreign language interpreters.\u00a0 It can be converted for use with another language by substituting for the word \u201cSpanish.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The\u00a0following instructions are provided\u00a0for situations that commonly arise at jury draw or before opening statements: CR01-011.\u00a0\u00a0Questions for the jurors\u00a0(07\/28\/03).\u00a0 The questions (have you heard anything about the case, etc.)\u00a0might be helpful in a high profile case; they are not necessary … Continue reading
\n<\/span><\/p>\n