Case Name: In re AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, THE FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, THE STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES, AND THE STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES-IMPLEMENTATION OF JURY INNOVATIONS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2007-10-04
Citations: 967 So. 2d 178
Docket Number: No. SC05-1091
Parties: In re AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, THE FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, THE STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES, AND THE STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES—IMPLEMENTATION OF JURY INNOVATIONS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS.
Judges: LEWIS, C.J., and ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, and CANTERO, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 967
Pages: 178–194

Head Matter:
In re AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, THE FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, THE STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES, AND THE STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES—IMPLEMENTATION OF JURY INNOVATIONS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS.
No. SC05-1091.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Oct. 4, 2007.
Corinne Cotton Hodak, Chair, Jacksonville, FL, and Keith H. Park, Past Chair, the Civil Procedure Rules Committee, West Palm Beach, FL; H. Scott Finger-hut, Chair, Miami, FL, and the Honorable Thomas H. Bateman, Past Chair, Criminal Procedure Rules Committee, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, FL; Scott D. Ma-kar, Chair, Standard Jury Instructions Rules Committee in Civil Cases, Office of General Counsel, Jacksonville, FL, and the Honorable Ralph Artigliere, Past Chair, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Bartow, FL; the Honorable O.H. Eaton, Jr., Chair, Criminal Court Steering Committee, Eighteenth Judicial Circuit, Sanford, FL; the Honorable Terry David Terrell, Chair, Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, First Judicial Circuit, Pensacola, FL, and Bill Cervone, Past Chair, Office of State Attorney, Eighth Judicial Circuit, Gainesville, FL; the Honorable Robert T. Benton, II, Chair, Rules of Judicial Administration Committee, First District Court of Appeal, Tallahassee, FL, and Katherine E. Gid-dings of Akerman Senterfitt, Tallahassee, FL, for Petitioners.
Michael Ufferman, P.A. and Paula S. Saunders, Office of Public Defender, Tal-lahssee, FL, on behalf of Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; Bill Wagner, Tampa, FL; Bill Wagner, Tampa, FL; the Honorable Kathleen F. Dekker, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, FL; the Honorable Nancy A. Daniels, Office of Public Defender, Tallahassee, FL, on behalf of the Florida Public Defender Association; Daniel S. Ciener, Merritt Island, FL; the Honorable David A. Giant, Eighth Judicial Circuit, Gainesville, FL; Brian L. Tannebaum and Milton Hirsch, Miami, FL, on behalf of Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers — Miami Chapter; the Honorable Dale Ross, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Fort Lauderdale, FL; Arthur I. Jacobs of Jacobs and Associations, P.A., Fernandina Beach, FL, on behalf of the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association; John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, the Florida Bar, Tallahassee, FL, and George Euripedes Tragos, Past Chair, Criminal Procedure Rules Committee, Clearwater, FL, Responding with comments.

Opinion:
WELLS, J.
We have for consideration a number of proposed amendments to court rules and standard jury instructions. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.
I. BACKGROUND
In November 1999, the Jury Innovations Committee (Committee) of this Court's Judicial Management Council embarked on the most comprehensive review and thorough evaluation of Florida's jury system in the history of this state. The Committee, appointed by then Chief Justice Major B. Harding, consisted of twenty-two members, who were broadly representative of the many groups interested in and affected by Florida's civil and criminal jury system. Members included judges from the district, circuit, and county courts, a state attorney, a public defender, a clerk of court, a trial court administrator, a jury coordinator, a professor of criminal justice, members of The Florida Bar, a former state senator, and four former jurors, one from a high-profile case. This Committee identified and reviewed, among other things, the current use of juries, issues facing jury managers, accessibility issues, and proposals for jury improvement and innovations in other states.
The Committee began its task with the challenge not to adhere to the status quo but instead to advocate reform and innovations. After reviewing every aspect of our jury system, the Committee ultimately submitted a final report to this Court containing comprehensive recommendations for improving Florida's jury system. After considering the Committee's final report, the Court referred, either for implementation or for consideration and recommendation, a number of the Jury Innovations Committee's recommendations to the Civil Procedure Rules Committee, the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee, the Rules of Judicial Administration Committee, the Committee on Standard Jury Instructions — Criminal (Criminal Jury Instructions Committee), the Committee on Standard Jury Instructions — Civil (Civil Jury Instructions Committee), and the Code and Rules of Evidence Committee. In re Final Report of Jury Innovations Committee, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC03-041 (Oct.17, 2003). The Court later referred one of the Committee's recommendations to the Criminal Court Steering Committee for implementation. Specifically, the recommendations that were referred to one or more committees were as follows:
Standardized Juror Questionnaires
Pre-voir dire questionnaires are desirable and beneficial. Model question naires should be developed for both civil and criminal cases, enabling lawyers to have a preview of jurors' backgrounds. In-court voir dire can then be limited to case-specific inquiries (subject to reasonable time limitations imposed by the court) and any follow-up questions necessary to clarify written answers.
Questions by Jurors
Jurors in both civil and criminal trials should be permitted to submit to the judge written questions to be asked of witnesses by the judge. The judge has the discretion to determine which jury questions are to be asked of witnesses. The Supreme Court should incorporate this right into the rules of civil and criminal procedure.
Note-Taking by Jurors
Jurors in both civil and criminal trials should be permitted to take notes and be advised they may do so. This right should be incorporated into the rules of civil and criminal procedure. Such rules would clarify that juror notes may be taken with them from the courtroom to the jury room. These notes may be shared with other jurors, but must be destroyed after the verdict is delivered. Appropriate jury instructions must be given.
Juror Notebooks
Juror notebooks, which can serve a useful function (especially in civil cases) in lengthy and complex trials, should be specifically authorized by court rule.
Juror Time Management
American Bar Association (ABA) Standard 13: Juror Use should be adopted as a rule of judicial administration.
Written Jury Instructions
Copies of the written jury instructions should be given to jurors for their use during deliberations.
Final Instructions Before Closing Arguments
Judges should be encouraged to deliver their final instructions to the jury before closing arguments.
Judicial Answers to Deliberating Jurors' Questions
Trial judges should be as responsive as possible and fully answer deliberating jurors' questions, consistent with applicable case law. The trial judge, when possible, should not ask jurors to rely on them "collective memory" when the judge is faced with questions from a deliberating jury, but rather respond more directly to them inquiries.
Read-Back of Testimony
The Supreme Court should develop specific criteria for denying a read-back request. Such criteria could include relevant factors, such as whether the requested testimony is too lengthy or too vague. While the trial judge should have discretion in granting or denying the read-back of testimony, such a read-back should not be denied unless the court finds that one of the criteria, such as excessive length or vagueness, is met.
Juror Impasse
Trial judges in criminal and civil cases should be allowed to assist deliberating juries in reaching a verdict where an Allen charge has been given and the jury continues to report that they are deadlocked. Jurors should know exactly what can occur if they cannot reach a verdict, that is, what a mistrial actually means.
Post-Verdict Discussions
Judges should advise jurors of their rights regarding post-verdict discussions at the conclusion of a trial. This issue should become institutionalized through the judicial educational component of both the New Judges College and the Advanced College for Judicial Education. Experienced trial judges, acting as instructors at these respective colleges, can provide valuable insight and information to fellow judges regarding post-verdict discussions.
The various committees have now submitted their reports in response to these recommendations, most of which propose various amendments to court rules or standard jury instructions. The proposed amendments were published for comment, and a number of comments were received. Some of the Jury Innovations Committee's recommendations received adverse comments from various committees that submitted reports or those who commented on the proposed amendments.
II. AMENDMENTS
Upon consideration of the reports submitted by the various committees, the comments filed in response to the publication of the proposed amendments, and the presentations of the parties during the two oral arguments heard in this case, we adopt the following amendments to court rules and authorize new and revised jury instructions in response to the Jury Innovations Committee's recommendations.
A.Standardized Juror Questionnaires
As noted, the Jury Innovations Committee recommended the development of juror questionnaires for use in both civil and criminal cases. The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure currently contain a standard juror questionnaire, form 1.984 — Juror Voir Dire Questionnaire. We conclude that this form is adequate for use in civil cases, and we adopt new Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.9855 — Juror Voir Dire Questionnaire, as proposed by the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee, for use in criminal cases. The use of these forms shall be at the discretion of the chief judge of each circuit court.
B.Questions by Jurors
In response to the Jury Innovations Committee's recommendation with regard to questions by jurors, we adopt new civil and criminal rules and authorize the publication and use of new civil and criminal jury instructions. New Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.452 requires a court to permit jurors to submit written questions directed to witnesses or the court and provides the procedure for doing so. New Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.371 provides the trial court with discretion to permit juror questions during the trial under a similar procedure as set forth in the corresponding civil rule. New standard civil instruction 1.13 and new standard criminal instruction 2.13 explain the procedure to the jury.
C.Juror Note-taking
As noted, the Jury Innovations Committee recommended that jurors in both civil and criminal trials should be permitted to take notes and be advised they may do so. To accomplish this purpose, we authorize the publication and use of revised standard civil instruction 1.8, as proposed by the Civil Jury Instructions Committee. We also authorize the publication and use of an identical criminal instruction, new standard criminal instruction 1.6. The revised civil and new criminal instructions inform jurors that they may but are not required to take notes during the trial, give guidance on the use of notes, and advise the jurors that their notes will be destroyed once the trial is completed. We also authorize a revision to standard civil instruction 7.2 regarding the use of notes during deliberations.
Finally, as proposed by the Rules of Judicial Administration Committee, we add new subdivision (l) to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.430 — -Retention of Court Records. This new subdivision requires the court, at the conclusion of the trial and promptly following discharge of the jury, to collect juror notes and immediately destroy them.
D.Juror Notebooks
To implement the Jury Innovations Committee's recommendation that juror notebooks be authorized by court rule, we adopt new Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.455 — Juror Notebooks and an identical criminal rule, new Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.372 — Juror Notebooks. We also amend civil rule 1.200(b) to add the potential use of juror notebooks to the list of issues to be addressed at the pretrial conference.
E.Juror Time Management
The Jury Innovations Committee's recommendation with regard to juror time management recognizes research that shows juror satisfaction is directly linked to how efficiently juror time is managed. In keeping with this recognition, we adopt new Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.256 — Juror Time Management. This new rule incorporates the provisions of the American Bar Association Standards Relating to Juror Use and Management and is meant to provide meaningful guidance to the courts on how to achieve the most efficient use of juror time.
F. Written Jury Instructions
To implement the Jury Innovations Committee's recommendation regarding written jury instructions, we amend Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.470(b) and Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.390(b) and 3.400 to require the court to provide the jury with a written set of instructions for use in deliberations.
G. Final Instructions Before Closing Arguments
As noted, the Jury Innovations Committee recommended that judges be encouraged to give final instructions to the jury before closing arguments. We agree that there are advantages to doing so and that this procedure should be encouraged. However, we conclude that the timing of instructions should ultimately be left to the discretion of the trial judge on a case-by-case basis. Accordingly, we amend Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.470(b) to allow a trial judge to orally instruct the jury either before or after closing arguments and provide appropriate instructions during the trial. If instructions are given prior to final argument, the amended rule directs the trial judge to give final procedural instructions after final arguments and before deliberations. A similar amendment is made to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.390(a).
H.Judicial Answers to Deliberating Jurors' Questions
In response to the Jury Innovations Committee's recommendation that judges be as responsive as possible to deliberating jurors' questions, we authorize the publication and use of new standard civil instruction 7.3(a)' — Answers to Juror Inquiries During Deliberations, as proposed by the Civil Jury Instructions Committee. This new instruction provides a format for judges to follow in recognizing and answering or, where appropriate, not answering juror questions. We also authorize an identical criminal instruction, new standard criminal instruction 4.3.
I.Read Back of Testimony
The Jury Innovations Committee recommended that the Court develop specific criteria for the denial of a juror request to read back portions of the trial testimony. However, in its response to this recommendation, the Civil Procedure Rules Committee declined to propose a rule on this subject, correctly pointing out that current Florida case law gives trial judges broad discretion in deciding whether to read back testimony. See, e.g., Francis v. State, 808 So.2d 110, 130 (Fla.2001) (finding no abuse of discretion where trial court told jury that reading back of testimony would take three hours and then left it up to the jury to decide); State v. Riechmann, 777 So.2d 342 (Fla.2000); Henry v. State, 649 So.2d 1361, 1365 (Fla.1994); Miller v. State, 605 So.2d 492, 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (finding no abuse of discretion where court reporter did not have her notes with her); DeCastro v. State, 360 So.2d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (finding no abuse of discretion where it was not practical because testimony was extensive and court reporter was physically exhausted). We conclude that trial judges should continue to have broad discretion in denying read-back requests. Accordingly, we decline to adopt any rule in this respect.
We do, however, authorize the publication and use of new civil and criminal jury instructions addressing the read-back of testimony. New standard civil instruction 7.3(b) provides a framework for acknowledging and either granting, deferring, or denying a jury's request for a read-back of testimony. For use in criminal trials, we authorize an identical criminal instruction, new standard criminal instruction 4.4.
J.Juror Impasse
Both the Civil Jury Instructions Committee and the Criminal Jury Instructions Committee opposed the Jury Innovations Committee's recommendation with regard to a more active judicial role in overcoming a juror impasse. We defer to the jury instructions committees' expertise on this matter and decline to adopt any amendments to the current standard jury instructions.
K.Post-Verdict Discussions
In response to the Jury Innovations Committee's recommendation that judges advise jurors of them rights regarding post-verdict discussions at the conclusion of a trial, we agree with the recommendation of the Civil Jury Instructions Committee that current standard civil instruction 7.4 — Instructions Upon Discharge of Jury is sufficient. We authorize the publication and use of revised standard criminal instruction 4.2 — Instruction Upon Discharge of Jury as proposed by the Criminal Jury Instructions Committee.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we hereby amend the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, and the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, as reflected in the appendix to this opinion. New language is indicated by underlining, and deleted language is struck through. The amendments shall become effective on January 1, 2008, at 12:01 a.m.
We also authorize the publication and use of the new and revised civil and criminal jury instructions as set forth in the appendix to this opinion. In so doing, we express no opinion on the correctness of the instructions and remind all interested parties that this authorization forecloses neither requesting additional or alternative instructions nor contesting the legal correctness of the instructions. We further caution all interested parties that any notes and comments associated with the instructions reflect only the opinion of the Civil or Criminal Jury Instructions Committee and are not necessarily indicative of the views of this Court as to their correctness or applicability. New language is indicated by underlining, and deleted language is struck through. Like the court rule amendments, the new and revised instructions shall become effective on January 1, 2008, at 12:01 a.m.
Finally, we wish to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of the Jury Innovations Committee, particularly by its Chair, the Honorable Robert Shevin of the Third District Court of Appeal, in bringing to this Court its comprehensive recommendations for innovation and improvement of the jury system in Florida. We also wish to thank the Civil Procedure Rules Committee, the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee, the Rules of Judicial Administration Committee, the Civil Jury Instructions Committee, the Criminal Jury Instructions Committee, the Criminal Court Steering Committee, and the Code and Rules of Evidence Committee for their thoughtful consideration, recommendations, and insight into the issues referred to them. The fruits of the labor of all of those who have participated in this matter will be gleaned by the citizens of this state in the form of a more meaningful and satisfying jury experience, as well as a more efficient and more effective jury system overall.
It is so ordered.
LEWIS, C.J., and ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, and CANTERO, JJ., concur.
QUINCE and BELL, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part with an opinion.
. This recommendation refers to Standard 13 of the American Bar Association Standards Relating to Juror Use and Management (1993).
. This is consistent with section 40.50(3), Florida Statutes (2006).
. Current standard civil instruction 1.1 encourages this procedure.
. On the subjects of written jury instructions and final instructions before closing arguments, we also authorize notes on the use of standard civil instructions 2.1, 7.1, and 7.2, as proposed by the Civil Jury Instructions Committee.
. We also authorize the Civil Jury Instructions Committee's recommendation that the last paragraph of standard civil instruction 7.2 be revised to provide: "If any of you need to communicate with me for any reason, write me a note and give it to the bailiff. In your note, do not disclose any vote or split or the reason for the communication."
. Unfortunately, Judge Shevin died before the work on this important report was completed by this Court. We do recognize his extraordinary dedication and service.