Juror questioning,
note taking
recommended
by some on panel

The committee's proposals will
now be studied by the high court

By Susan Kreifels
Star-Bulletin

Morrie Cohen has served on two juries. One defendant was accused of child molestation; the other was charged with possession of drugs.

Both times, the questions he wanted answered were never asked.

"If I could have had them answered, I would have known exactly if they were guilty," Cohen said yesterday.

Cohen was one of four former jurors to sit on the Hawaii Committee on Jury Innovations for the 21st Century. He voted to recommend that jurors be allowed to ask questions in a trial.

The jurors were given certificates of appreciation yesterday at a ceremony during which the committee's recommendations were presented to the Hawaii Supreme Court, which will now consider them. Committee members also included judges and attorneys.

Allowing juror questions is the most controversial of the recommendations, particularly among defense attorneys who say such questions have caused many problems that have resulted in reversals.

About half the states now allow them.

Alex Zarella, another former juror on the committee, also voted in favor of juror questions, as well as allowing jurors to take notes. She sat in a grand auto theft trial in Los Angeles in which she was allowed to take notes, and a dental malpractice trial in Hawaii that allowed juror questions.

"There is such a thing as juror stress, and I don't think it gets addressed often enough," Zarella said.

Asking questions and taking notes allow jurors "to make the best decision possible.""We can't go beyond what the attorneys present, but at least we feel confident about what is presented," she said.

Among jurors there "is always high respect for the court," she added.

Juror innovations have been tried in several state courtrooms for the past six months, and the pilot program will continue for nine more months.

Associate Justice Steven Levinson, who was at the presentation yesterday, said he didn't foresee the Supreme Court taking action until the end of the pilot program.