CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL RULES COMMITTEE

ADOPTION REPORT

Amendment of Pa.R.Crim.P. 644

Note Taking By Jurors

On December 3, 2021, effective April 1, 2022, upon recommendation of the 

Criminal Procedural Rules Committee, the Court amended Rule 644 to clarify (1) that 

jurors are permitted to take notes during trial regardless of the duration of the trial and (2) 

that “trial” includes opening statements and closing arguments for purposes of note 

taking. The Committee has prepared this Adoption Report describing the rulemaking 

process. An Adoption Report should not be confused with Comments to the rules. See

Pa.R.J.A. 103, Comment. The statements contained herein are those of the Committee, 

not the Court.

Pa.R.Crim.P. 644 (Note Taking by Jurors) was adopted in 2005 and largely based 

on Pa.R.Civ.P. 223.2 (Conduct of the Jury Trial. Juror Note Taking), which was adopted 

in 2003. However, there were several differences between Pa.R.Civ.P. 223.2 and 

Pa.R.Crim.P. 644. First, Pa.R.Civ.P. 223.2 permitted jurors to take notes during “the 

proceedings” for use in deliberations, while Pa.R.Crim.P. 644 permitted note taking

“during trial.” Second, Pa.R.Civ.P. 223.2 allowed a judge the discretion to permit note 

taking in trials lasting more than two days, while Pa.R.Crim.P. 644 required the judge to 

allow jurors to take notes in trials lasting more than two days but left to the judge’s 

discretion whether to permit note taking in trials of shorter duration. Both Pa.R.Civ.P.

223.2 and Pa.R.Crim.P. 644 contained prohibitions against note taking during the judge’s 

charge but were silent as to opening statements and closing arguments. 

The Criminal Procedural Rules Committee and the Civil Procedural Rules 

Committee formed a joint subcommittee to discuss the merits of reducing these 

differences and bringing greater consistency to the rules. The joint subcommittee made 

two recommendations: (1) the two-day threshold for juror note taking should be removed; 

and (2) the rules should clarify that note taking is permitted during opening statements 

and closing arguments. 

Two-Day Trial Time Limitation

After receiving the joint subcommittee’s recommendations, the Committee 

discussed the extent of the trial judge’s discretion in allowing juror note taking. Prior to 

the present amendment, Pa.R.Crim.P. 644 required a presiding judge to permit note 

taking in trials lasting more than two days but granted the judge discretion in trials lasting 

less than two days. The Committee questioned why this time limit was chosen and 

whether it was an arbitrary limitation. In reviewing the history of Pa.R.Crim.P. 644, it was 
2

noted that when first adopted, there was some skepticism that note taking by jurors was 

either necessary or beneficial. As a compromise, note taking was not permitted during

trials lasting less than two days, reasoning that short trials are generally less complex, 

while note taking was permitted during longer trials, which are presumably more 

complicated. 

The Committee noted that courts have become more accustomed to juror note 

taking, recognizing the benefits while observing that few of the problems originally feared 

with the practice have occurred. Thus the Committee agreed with the joint subcommittee

that, regardless of the length of the trial or its complexity, jurors should be allowed to take 

notes and that the two-day limitation should be eliminated.

Note Taking During Opening Statements and Closing Arguments

In examining the joint subcommittee’s recommendation, several Committee 

members shared juror observations. First, taking notes during opening statements aided 

the jurors in familiarizing themselves with the theories that were going to be presented

during the trial. Those notes also helped them organize their thoughts in anticipation of 

hearing the evidence. Second, jurors found that taking notes during closing arguments 

aided in recalling those arguments. Additionally, it appeared that jurors had no trouble 

distinguishing between evidence and argument. 

The Committee also observed that note taking throughout the trial, rather than only 

during the presentation of evidence, offers several benefits. First, liberal allowance of 

note taking demonstrates respect for and trust in the jurors and their ability to perform 

their duties. Second, note taking keeps attorneys accountable; if jurors take notes, 

attorneys need to take greater care to avoid discrepancies between the opening 

statement and what evidence is presented. To the concern that opening statements may 

include references to evidence that is ultimately precluded, curative instructions are an 

available remedy — it was also noted that there are instances during the presentation of 

evidence when testimony can be stricken. Finally, it was observed that the federal courts 

permit jurors to take notes during all parts of a trial.1

As a result of these discussions, the Committee concluded that note taking should 

be permitted during both openings and closings in addition to during the presentation of 

evidence. Note taking, however, will still be precluded during the judge’s charge.

The Committee published this proposal for comment. See 50 Pa.B. 3576 (July 18, 

2020). One comment was received objecting to note taking during openings and 

 

1 Note taking by jurors in federal court is permitted at the discretion of each judge. 

The directive appears to be set forth in pattern jury instructions and not pursuant to rule.
3

closings. No post-publications responsive revisions were made to the proposal for the 

reasons contained herein. This amendment becomes effective April 1, 2022.