1

Davis, Mikalla

From: Jane McNeill <jmcneill@pd10.org>Sent: Friday, April 17, 2020 9:44 AMTo: Davis, Mikalla; Godwin, KrysSubject: Fwd: FW: new rules for jury inst commAttachments: Rules for jury inst committees.docx; SC20-145 Supreme Court Opinion.pdf

Please add this as a referral to the upcoming Fast Track meeting. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Godwin, Krys <KGodwin@floridabar.org> Date: Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 9:47 AM Subject: FW: new rules for jury inst comm To: Jeffrey Cohen <jacohen@cfjblaw.com>, Huey, Paul <HUEYPL@fljud13.org>, Gagliardi, Josephine <jgagliardi@ca.cjis20.org>, Bronson, Ardith <ardith.bronson@dlapiper.com>, McNeill, Jane <jmcneill@pd10.org> Cc: Davis, Mikalla <midavis@floridabar.org>

Chairs,

I would like to share with you the initial review and considerations from the SJI-Criminal committee regarding the rule amendments within SC20-145 (attached for your convenience). I have been speaking with their liaison about the potential of filing a joint comment to the Court if we all agree on the same concerns. If not, please do not feel bound by our thoughts.

I know you are all busy, but if you would like for me to set up a conference call to discuss the attached suggestions and points below, I would be happy to do so. If you would prefer to chat via e-mail, I believe I have included all who are necessary from our side, and we can bring in the SJI-Crim contacts, if you desire.

Sincerely,

Krys Godwin

Krys Godwin, Director

2

Legal Publications Phone: 850.561.5706 | Email: kgodwin@floridabar.org

The Florida Bar 651 East Jefferson Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300

From: Bart Schneider <schneidb@flcourts.org> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 12:06 PM To: Godwin, Krys <KGodwin@floridabar.org> Subject: new rules for jury inst comm

Krys-

Crim JI committee would like to file a comment in SC20-145.

I’ve attached proposed changes.

If 1) civ pro rules committee; 2) crim pro rules committee; 3) civil jury inst committee; 4) contracts/bus jury inst committee; and 5) RJAC agree; then we could file a joint comment.

Please let me know.

Explanations are as follows:

Rule 1.470 – Crim JI committee made no changes bc this rule doesn’t affect criminal.

3

Rule 2.270(a) – Delete “ ,by two-thirds vote,” First thought of Crim JI committee was 2/3 of what??? But then Crim JI committee thought 2.270(a) can cover general ideas and 2.270(c) can address the specific 2/3 requirement.

Rule 2.270(c)(3) – Add “of those in attendance” so that it is clear that approval requires 2/3 of those in attendance as opposed to 2/3 of all members or 2/3 of anything else.

Rule 2.270(c)(5) – Add a new provision labelled (c)(5) to archive what is being lost by absence of a FSC opinion. Used “approved supreme court website” instead of the existing web address because FSC web people want Fla. Bar to host JI website. I’m against that, by the way, but they have technical reasons which we will discuss on 4/30 phone conference. Until that is settled, I think approved website is best, unless FSC decides before comment is filed.

Rule 2.270(d) – Technical change only. Right now, there is a (d)(1) but there is no (d)(2). Crim JI committee thought move up the sentence starting with “Each supreme court committee…” and delete the “(1)” and relabel (A) (B) (C) as (1)(2)(3).

Rule 2.270(f) – Use approved website unless FSC decides soon who should host the website.

Rule 2.580(a) – In first sentence, use “approved website.” Reword other parts of 2.580(a) to give more leeway to trial judges to deviate from standard instructions. Thus, “erroneous, inadequate, or confusing…”

4

Rule 2.580(c)- The heading refers to no presumption of correctness but the text does not. Crim JI committee added text to be consistent with the heading.

Rule 3.390(a) – Crim JI comm thought this crim pro rule needed an explicit: “Trial judges shall instruct jurors on the applicable law.” Don’t need “only on the law of the case” because 90.106 says judge should not sum up or comment on the evidence.

Your thoughts?

-Bart

PS – Crim JI committee also considered adding a requirement that published proposals need a brief explanation. Was voted down because that requirement could be included in each committee IOP if they chose to do so.

Please note: Florida has very broad public records laws. Many written communications to or from The Florida Bar regarding Bar business may be considered public records, which must be made available to anyone upon request. Your e-mail communications may therefore be subject to public disclosure.

-- Jane A. McNeill Assistant Public Defender

863-534-4367 jmcneill@pd10.org

5

To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.