Prioritize safe resumption of Marin jury trials

For some Marin residents facing their civic responsibility to show up at the San Rafael courthouse for jury duty, the county Superior Court’s announcement that it was not yet ready to hold jury trials was welcomed news.

Those trials have been in limbo since December, when the then-rising number of COVID-19 cases led the court to put them on hold.

They were scheduled to resume last week, but the court extended the delay.

With the number of vaccinated people rising and the rate of coronavirus cases on a steady decline, the local court should be able to safely resume its jury trial schedule while also taking necessary precautions to protect the health of those involved.

There likely will be stumbling blocks and challenges to what’s normal. But the court, defense and prosecutors should be able to work together to make sure trials proceed in a fair and just way.

The question raised by the court’s decision to delay resumption of jury trials is its effect on a defendant’s 6th Amendment right to a “speedy” trial. It raises a question about the fairness to a defendant in having their trial proceed when it is reasonably practical to do so.

That question should be raised by both defendants and prosecutors as neither should want a verdict undermined by a later argument that the defendant was unfairly denied his or her right.

The Marin court’s March 5 announcement that it was not ready to resume jury trials caught local attorneys by surprise.

Court spokesman James Kim, in the statement he released, said the delay is part of “an effort to continue to support public health and the well-being and safety of our community.”

He declined to elaborate, leaving unaddressed the matter of timely justice, other than the court will continue to evaluate its decision given ever-changing pandemic conditions.

Speedy or not, the number of jury trials awaiting time in local court numbers 200, ranging from murders to misdemeanor. Marin District Attorney Lori Frugoli says in those cases, defendants have asserted their right to a “speedy” trial.

Some attorneys have asked that attorneys and court staff involved in those trials be made eligible for vaccinations in hopes that those trials can be held.

Given that those should be few in number, the request seems to make sense.

If courtrooms need additional improvements and equipment to address public health concerns, the court should detail them and their progress toward completing that work.

Before the court ordered a stop to jury trials, it had been holding them, while taking necessary practical precautions. The December suspension was based on a significant spike in local COVID-19 cases and an understandable concern for the health of all involved — defendants, court staff, judges, lawyers and witnesses.

If there is evidence that the trials held before suspension has resulted in the spread of the coronavirus, it hasn’t been publicly detailed.

The court, especially in its role of compelling local residents to show up for jury duty, is right to make their safety a top priority. Its March 5 announcement is an example of that caution, but the court also needs to provide greater clarity in what public health milestones need to be met to keep its promise to meet defendants’ constitutional right to a “speedy” and fair trial.