Dear Readers,
Welcome to the April edition of the Civil Jury Project’s monthly newsletter.
First and foremost, we hope that you and yours are safe and well while the entire country responds to this pandemic. It will have far reaching effects for all of us—and for our justice system.
As most of you have done, we at the Project are working remotely. We are in the process of moving eight events such as our judicial workshops, jury improvement lunches, and speaking engagements to the fall. While we are not on the road as usual, we view this as a chance to explore the future of jury trials and how technology may help. The Covid-19 pandemic has accelerated courts' turning to technology in order to deliver justice. Until our events start back up in autumn, we will be working on analyzing how a virtual trial would work. Are there any Constitutional concerns of having jurors deliberate remotely? Would this decrease or increase costs for an already burdened system? How would you pick a jury? Would a virtual trial deliver the same quality of justice? The list of considerations of moving from the physical courtroom to a courtroom in cyberspace is long. We will try to cover as many of these questions as possible over the coming months.
This issue continues a section of the newsletter—re-launched two issues ago—that contains testimonials from recently discharged jurors.
In addition, this issue features pieces by two judicial advisors and one of our research fellows. The first, by the Honorable David Keenan, outlines the challenges jurors faced on March 9th in King County, Washington, as the country began wrestling with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The second, by the Honorable Nathaniel Gorton, analyzes the benefits of properly implemented time limitations in civil jury trials. The third, by research fellow Michael Elias Shammas, recounts the “trial of counting trials” in the United States, while brainstorming ways that states can better enable researchers and others to gather accurate data. Finally, Richard Gabriel brainstorms what online jury trials could look like.
Thank you for your support of the Civil Jury Project. You can find a full and updated outline of our status of projects on our
website
. In addition, we welcome op-ed proposals or full article drafts for inclusion in upcoming newsletters and on our website either by email or
here
.
|
Sincerely,
Stephen D. Susman
|
|
Due to the Stay Home orders, all spring events are being rescheduled to the fall.
|
|
|
|
Seating a Civil Jury During a Pandemic
|
By the Honorable David Keenan
|
|
|
|
It’s early on a Monday morning. You lost an hour’s sleep yesterday because of Daylight Saving Time. Your city recently emerged from a record-breaking 30 days with rain in a single month and 80 straight cloudy days. The stock market is down 2,000 points. Oh, and you live in King County—ground zero in the U.S. for what will soon be declared a pandemic. But good news: You’ve been summoned for jury duty!
This was the situation confronting roughly 98 people who were civic-minded enough to report for jury duty at the King County Courthouse in Downtown Seattle the morning of March 9th, during one of the most challenging times in recent history. When people were being told not to gather in crowds and to engage in something called “social distancing,” our prospective jurors dutifully appeared on the ground floor of the courthouse to potentially do just the opposite.
I was starting a civil trial the morning of March 9th, and the facts concerning COVID-19 and the disease’s
[1] implications for our court were developing quickly. Most area schools and shops and restaurants were still open, and as the state court of general jurisdiction in a county of some 2 million people, by necessity, so were we. We knew that our county had more confirmed COVID-19 cases than anyplace else in the nation, but we also had litigants who looked to our courts for protection and to vindicate their rights. So, I called up 48 jurors to our 8th floor courtroom to begin jury selection.
Space and time were my two most immediate concerns. Space to keep jurors apart, and the time necessary to get empaneled. Space is often an issue during jury selection. Our courtroom comfortably seats around 50 jurors—60 in a pinch. Maintaining the CDC-recommended 6 feet between individuals was not workable, unless I brought the jurors up in small groups. But working in batches of jurors would mean a longer overall process to seat a jury. We seated 14 in the jury box and 34 in the gallery, and they stared anxiously at counsel and the bench, wondering how long before they could distance themselves from each other and the largest public courthouse serving America’s COVID-19 hotbed. They wouldn’t have to wait long.
We all felt the clock ticking, and I needed to control the pace of jury selection more than usual. I had first considered having prospective jurors complete hardship and issue questionnaires in the jury assembly room before calling them to our courtroom, reasoning that I could screen out jurors in advance who couldn’t or shouldn’t serve in this particular case. But that would have meant the same group of 48 jurors possibly sitting in a different room with another 50 jurors, completing two questionnaires, which I would then need to review—while they waited. To move this along, I concluded that I needed to gather these jurors and move quickly through jury selection in a way that balanced the rights of the parties to a fair and impartial jury with the public health needs of our jurors and court staff.
The 98 jurors who appeared at the King County Courthouse the morning of March 9th represented about half of what we normally get. That morning, consistent with public health guidelines, the court had posted signs excusing jurors with various health conditions, those 60 and older, the sick, and even those who had recently been around a sick person. I was surprised that anyone showed up, but bless those who did. One of the prospective jurors wore a hospital mask, but assured me that she wasn’t sick—just anxious—they all were. Because court leadership had acted quickly to proactively screen out those at the greatest risk, none of my 48 prospective jurors asked to be excused for health reasons—and only a few even asked to be excused because of scheduling concerns. Childcare is always a concern when picking a jury, and yet, even with some large area school districts already closed, no one asked to be excused for any reason related to COVID-19. We got through hardships in about five minutes.
I spent maybe another five minutes on general questions for our prospective jurors. The lawyers had earlier requested that I ask a long set of questions with multiple follow-up questions; even without a burgeoning pandemic, I would’ve probably rejected that approach. I asked the questions, called out the numbers of responding jurors, and we moved on. (I always give the lawyers hard copies of my questions in advance, with check-boxes numbered for each prospective juror, so the lawyers can quickly note which jurors respond to which questions.)
Moving on to the heart of voir dire, I gave each side two rounds of fifteen minutes. I wanted to move this along, but the lawyers needed time to gather enough information to meaningfully exercise their challenges. No one complained. We had very competent and cooperative counsel, and they understood that we needed to seat a jury quickly in order to disperse this crowd and start the trial before unfolding events overtook us. The lawyers were efficient and sensitive with the jurors, and didn’t use all their time. (Judges won’t be surprised to hear this; lawyers often think they need more time than is truly necessary to get the information they need to exercise a challenge. Nothing like a public health crisis to get us all focused on what’s important.)
It was about 80 minutes from the time the 48 jurors walked into Courtroom W-864 to the time we swore in the 14 who would serve as jurors in this civil trial. Under the circumstances, even that relatively short amount of time felt painfully long. This is not to make the scene seem more dramatic than it was. We were picking a jury, and I was not the only judge that day with jurors. I am not a first responder. Even without a virus spreading around the globe, sitting on the bench means that I get to maintain social distance every day! This was not a situation where “seconds count.” I recount the story only to emphasize that our prospective jurors, the parties, counsel, and staff—all of us, in any courtroom, were dealing with uncertainty. They all did great.
The public health crisis created by COVID-19 dramatically expanded over the course of the six-day trial. When voir dire began, most schools and restaurants were still open, and large gatherings were still permitted. By the time I released the jury on March 16th—just a week after we began—all schools were closed, no one could dine in a restaurant, and gatherings of any size were either forbidden or allowed only with severe restrictions. International borders were open when we started; many were closed when we finished.
|
|
Throughout the trial, I tried to balance the need to be transparent and keep the jury informed, with my concern about being alarmist, and the reluctance I always have to talk with the jury during the trial for any reason in anything but the most basic terms. I wanted to know how the jurors were feeling, but I didn’t want to do anything that might make them feel pressured to do anything less than listen to all of the evidence and deliberate with their fellow jurors in an effort to reach a just and proper verdict.
Our wonderful Bailiff, Beatrice Marquez, did a superb job of checking in with the jury and relaying their feelings to me, and our superb clerk, Barbara Kubasu, was calm and professional as she carefully handled exhibits which had been touched by numerous hands. Remarkably, none of the jurors expressed any urgent concerns. Mostly, the jurors just wanted to know if the courthouse was going to close. The media was reporting that other area courthouses were closing due to instances of potential COVID-19 exposure, and the jurors understandably wanted to know if the King County Courthouse would be next. When I later spoke with the jury after I had released them, they told me that they wished we’d been more proactive in emailing or calling them each morning to let them know that the courthouse was still open and that they should still report. Some of the jurors understandably expressed confusion in trying to distinguish among courthouse closures. (For example, when it was reported that the nearby Seattle Municipal Court closed due to a staff member with COVID-19, some of the jurors weren’t sure if that meant all courts would close, and didn’t understand the difference between a municipal court and a superior court.) Communication was key, and I know now that I could’ve done better.
I did take care each day to thank the jurors for being there. I never used the words “COVID-19” or “coronavirus.” I generally referred to the “public health crisis.” I wasn’t quite sure which phrasing to us, but I wanted to address the jurors in a way that acknowledged their sacrifice without continually sounding the alarm. Later, the jurors told me that they actually appreciated that I didn’t say “coronavirus,” because they felt triggered and anxious each time they heard the word. As one juror told me after the trial concluded: “We all knew what you were talking about. You didn’t have to say exactly what it was.”
We are normally only in trial Monday through Thursday, saving Fridays for dispositive motions hearings and sentencing calendars. Everyone rearranged their schedules so we could hold trial on Friday—Friday the 13th of all days! The jury got the case late Friday morning, and I figured they’d be anxious to reach a verdict and get out of what by then was an increasingly empty courthouse. I was surprised when we reached the end of the day on Friday and the jury said it was coming back Monday to resume deliberations. I was quite concerned at that point that events would unfold so rapidly over the weekend that our jurors wouldn’t or couldn’t return.
Monday morning, at 8:50 a.m., all twelve jurors were back. Rather than send them back into the jury room attached to our courtroom to sit around a conference table, we let them use the entire courtroom for deliberations so they could spread out. They later told me that they were so grateful to have that space. By the end of the day Monday, the trial was over. Three days earlier, Presiding Judge Jim Rogers had made the difficult but important decision to suspend summoning jurors for several weeks. This jury would be among the last in the courthouse for quite some time, and I told them that.
As I write this in my chambers on March 17th, many area courthouses are closed, and the King County Superior Court is doing its best to remain open in a limited capacity to fill pressing needs for things like protection orders and shelter care for vulnerable children, while also keeping staff and judicial officers safe. Many are working from home where feasible, but we still need judicial officers in the courthouse to serve our community. Especially in times of crisis, people look to the courts for protection. We have been fortunate in the King County Superior Court to have leaders who strive to balance the needs of the public we serve with the needs of those serving. Our judges and staff—from the bailiffs and clerks and administrative support to the facilities and maintenance workers constantly cleaning the door handles—have continued to show up for the community and each other.
On January 21st, officials confirmed the first case of COVID-19 in America about thirty miles north of our courthouse. As of March 16th, there were more than 900 cases in Washington—including 488 cases (nearly 12 percent of all confirmed cases in the U.S.) and 43 deaths (more than half of all deaths in the U.S.) in the County our court serves. The courthouse is quiet, but it’s not empty—it can’t be. Not even in a pandemic.
I give out certificates of appreciation to jurors at the end of every trial. On top of the $10 per day we pay jurors, the certificate isn’t much; I joke that it’s suitable for the refrigerator. The certificate reads in part: “This certificate is awarded in recognition of this valuable service in the Administration of Justice to the people of the State of Washington.” Until now, I’d not given the language much thought. This time, before presenting certificates to the jurors, I added three words: “This certificate is awarded in recognition of this valuable service in the Administration of Justice to the people of the State of Washington,
during a pandemic.” The jurors laughed when I read them the language, and we all knew that we’d shared in something special during a trying time in our nation’s history.
[1] Here, I use the name of the disease—COVID-19—rather than the technical name of the virus—SARS-CoV-2—AKA, Coronavirus.
|
The Honorable David Keenan
, one of our judicial advisors, is a Superior Court Judge in King County, Washington.
|
|
|
|
The Trial of Counting Trials
By
Michael Elias Shammas
|
|
|
|
“It is clear that the number of jury trials declined in many, perhaps most, jurisdictions … over the last fifty years.”
[1]
As Professor Marc Galanter writes, this decline reflects a long-term phenomenon with roots beginning in the early twentieth century.
[2]
I’ve previously brainstormed the
causes
of the decline in civil jury trials. I recently decided to see whether I could
quantify
this decline. Specifically, are some states exempt from the downward trend in civil jury trials? For reasons scholars like Professor Herbert M. Kritzer point out, I eventually found that—despite comprehensive federal data—accurately measuring the decline in civil jury trials
by state
is fraught, maybe impossible. This is due to state judiciaries' differences in methodology, especially regarding fundamental questions like the proper definition of the word “trial.”
Luckily, the task of counting trials “is clearest for jury trials, but even for those trials, one must decide at what point a trial is to be counted: when
voir dire
is begun,
voir dire
is completed, opening statements are made, testimony is started, one side completes the presentation of its case, both sides complete their cases, closing arguments and jury instructions are presented, jury deliberation begins, or a verdict is returned.”
[3]
What criteria one is most comfortable using will naturally depend on why one values jury trials in the first place. Is a jury trial valuable because (as legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin writes in
Law’s Empire
) it helps a citizen accept a judgment as legitimate by circumscribing that judgment within uniform procedures? If so, one is unlikely to count anything but a “complete” trial. Conversely, does a trial begin immediately after the defendant’s monetary security and the plaintiff’s accusation are put to the test? If so, a verdict is obviously unnecessary.
***
So counting trials would be difficult even with access to accurate data. Unfortunately, data “for state trial rates … [are] far more difficult to obtain and compare” than data for federal trial rates, “largely due to differences between state judicial systems and inconsistent methods of reporting, in contrast to the federal statistical reports.”
[4]
In making the attempt anyway, I found that the best data measuring state-by-state differences come from the National Center for State Courts, which in 2004 assembled one of “the most widely used data sets on state court civil trial trends.”
[5]
Synthesizing numbers from 21 states and the District of Columbia from 1976-2002, the dataset remains immensely useful as a “cornerstone in analyses of civil trial trends” because of “its comprehensive scope.”
[6]
As apparent from the table above, the National Center for State Courts shows a consistent and stable decline from 1976 to 2002. This downward trend applies to both bench trials and jury trials.
Interestingly, Graham Bryant and Kristopher McClellan found data from Virginia suggesting the state may be an outlier. As they write, “civil trials actually appear to be
on the rise
in the Commonwealth.” Because I read the Bryant and McClellan piece after Kritzer’s analysis regarding the trial of counting trials, I wondered whether Virginia is a true outlier or whether methodological dis-uniformity, such as that regarding how states define “trial,” was driving differences in the data.
Unfortunately, it is currently impossible to compare states’ methodologies. For example, my attempt to compare the Virginia dataset versus that used for the 1976-2002 data on 22 states fell short because the raw data on the Virginia Judicial System website does not tell us anything about methodology, including how it defines “trial.”
When I turned away from Westlaw, I found a few other comprehensive datasets that are of use in a state-by-state analysis. These datasets mostly include statistics courtesy of the United States Department of Justice (the
Bureau of Justice Statistics
). One can also replicate what Bryant and McClellan did for Virginia by logging onto individual state websites. Unfortunately, the relatively dated National Center for State Courts’
raw data
remains our best tool, as reflected by a
list of sources for data on American trials
compiled by Michigan Law Professor Margo Schlanger.
Despite dis-uniformity in the data—and despite trouble separating bench trials from jury trials—two things seem clear:
(1)
With the exception of possible outliers like Virginia, the majority of state data mirrors federal data in showing a steady decline in the number of civil trials; and
(2)
any state-by-state analysis will fail unless the same methodology—including a stable definition for words that are as seemingly trivial as “trial”—is adopted for every state.
Absent such a methodology, the ways the data are assembled will simply lack the uniformity required to allow us or other researchers to conduct a state-by-state analysis of the ongoing decline in civil jury trials.
Endnotes
[1]
Herbert M. Kritzer,
The Trials and Tribulations of Counting "Trials",
62 DePaul L. Rev. 415, 438 (2013).
[2]
See, e.g.
, Marc Galanter,
The Hundred-Year Decline of Trials and the Thirty Years War
, 57 Stan. L. Rev. 1255 (2005).
[4]
Graham K. Bryant & Kristopher R. McClellan,
The Disappearing Civil Trial: Implications for the Future of Law Practice
, 30 Regent U. L. Rev. 287, 296 (2018).
|
|
|
|
Michael Shammas
is a research fellow for the Civil Jury Project.
|
|
|
|
|
What Online Jury Trials Could Look Like
By Richard Gabriel
|
|
|
|
Federal and state courts in all 50 states have postponed jury trials and are struggling to try and maintain court functions and access to the justice system in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and public health concerns. As a result, there is a provision in Congress’ new $2 trillion proposed COVID-19 relief bill that allows for remote proceedings, such as video and teleconferencing in some court hearings.
Also, starting this week, the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York will give grand jurors the option of convening and deliberating via a videoconference system. Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure does not mandate that the grand jury must all congregate or deliberate in the same room. While there are jury instructions and statutes that speak of “open court,” “the jury room,” and that “jurors must be present,” there are also no rules in the federal or state courts that explicitly state that trial participants must be physically present during a trial proceeding.
Last week, U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan in Manhattan allowed one of the 11 jurors in the trial of an Iranian banker to deliberate by FaceTime because the juror reported feeling unwell. In light of coronavirus concerns, Judge Nathan stated the court was under “extraordinary circumstances” and in “untested waters.” After being assured the juror would be secluded in their apartment, Judge Nathan stated to the juror, “You must think of yourself as present in the jury room.
At the same time in California, all jury trials have been stayed for 60 days to comply with the state’s COVID-19 lockdown rules. But the statewide order by Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye also stated, “Courts may conduct such a trial at an earlier date, upon a finding of good cause shown or through the use of remote technology, when appropriate.”
How could jury trials be conducted online? First, a trial is fundamentally an oral advocacy forum where evidence is communicated through verbal testimony and shown documentary and demonstrative evidence. Legal instruction is also given verbally. As long as all jurors are present, can hear and see witnesses and evidence, listen to instructions, and all deliberate, there is nothing operationally in a trial that would not lend itself to an online function. So, what would a hypothetical model for online jury trials look like?
1. First, jurisdictions would contract with a videoconferencing service like Zoom, Adobe Connect,
Google Hangouts Meet, GoToMeeting or Webex as their technology platform. These platforms would handle all pretrial conferences and motion practice. Judges, courtroom staff, court administrators, attorneys and witnesses would be given tutorials to view to help them use the technology more seamlessly and to help with camera placement, sound levels and lighting to make their presentations more uniform.
2. In pretrial conferences, the judge and the parties would establish the trial schedule and the basic rules for using the videoconferencing technology. As jurors would be sitting in front of a computer watching the trial, human-factor studies that discuss technology attention spans should be considered. Taking more frequent but shorter breaks to ensure jurors are tracking and retaining the testimony and evidence might be helpful.
3. In a jury summons, jurors would also be asked whether they have a working computer with a camera and functioning internet access. If they do not have one or both, they could be directed to a government office or cubicle with appropriate social distance to log on to a designated computer with a camera and internet access.
4. For jury selection, jurors would be sent a link to an online questionnaire via Survey Monkey, Google Forms,
Qualtrics or SurveyGizmo. They would fill out this questionnaire under oath.
5. The judge and attorneys would review the juror questionnaires and in a pretrial videoconference, would make preliminary determinations about hardship or cause challenges.
6. Jury selection could be undertaken in two possible scenarios: Jurors can log on at scheduled times and be individually interviewed by the judge and attorneys, or an entire jury panel can log onto a webinar type of interface.
In the second scenario, the judge and attorneys can ask questions of the entire panel. Jurors who have responses can identify themselves through chat responses or virtual hand raises on the site and can then be individually questioned by activating their cameras. Based on their responses, attorneys can exercise cause and peremptory challenges until they have a jury panel.
7. Once the jury is selected and sworn, they would log onto a separate initiated meeting or videoconference call. They would be given preliminary legal instructions by the judge as well as instructions about using the technology in their service as jurors. They would be instructed to isolate themselves in a part of their homes so that others in their household could not view or listen to the trial. They would be instructed not to do any internet research or discuss the case, as they would be instructed in an in-person trial.
If needed, a court clerk or bailiff could monitor the browser of the juror that is logged on to the videoconferencing platform to make sure they are not conducting their own research or scrolling through news or social media feeds during the trial sessions. During the trial, the juror’s camera would be turned on so that the judge, attorneys, court personnel and witnesses could also see the jury.
8. Because there is a First Amendment right to view public trials, the specific trial’s login information can be posted on a court website.
9. Many of these videoconferencing platforms allow for the documents or video to also be shown during presentations, which would let attorneys or witnesses show exhibits and video deposition clips, and use PowerPoint, Trial Director, TrialPad or other presentation software during their opening statements, direct and cross-examinations, and closing arguments.
10. Witnesses would also log onto the videoconferencing platform and be sworn in and examined by the attorneys. Objections would be handled similar to how they are normally handled in trial.
11. A court reporter would also be able to transcribe the proceedings, or a LiveNote Stream of the trial can also be recorded. These platforms also allow the recording of the entire proceeding.
12. If the court typically allows juror questions during the witness examinations, jurors can simply submit those questions with the appropriate chat tool during or after each of the witnesses. Jurors could also take notes on their computers or on a separate pad, with an admonition to keep their notes away from others in their household and not to review their notes outside of court hours.
13. After closing arguments, jurors would be given jury instructions by the judge and instructions on downloading a single verdict form once they have chosen a foreperson. They would also be given some guidelines on how to make sure that all the jurors can have the opportunity to speak and be heard during their online deliberations. They would then log onto a separate videoconferencing meeting from the trial site in order to preserve the confidentiality of their deliberations.
The jurors would make sure all jurors (except the alternates unless allowed) were present and that all of the jurors could see and hear each other. If jurors have questions for the court or would like to hear readbacks or see exhibits, they could communicate with the clerk or the judge via a secure channel. If need be, they could be sent relevant exhibits, or even hear playbacks of the testimony. Jurors would then deliberate to a verdict, fill out an electronic verdict form, and send it to the clerk or judge.
14. On the original trial site, all of the parties and the jury would reconvene for the reading of the verdict. The parties could poll the jury, if needed.
By no means is this a perfect system. Last week, closing arguments were held via Zoom in a voting rights case and encountered numerous glitches as U.S. District Judge Cathy Seibel and the attorneys tried to operate the new technology. There will always be inevitable challenges of all technology — including power outages, slow internet speeds, comprehension problems, and user error — and the need for the judge, attorneys, witnesses and jurors to be present for prolonged periods online.
Every court would need a help line and computer-savvy personnel to make sure these systems run relatively smoothly. There also may be statutory hurdles that need to be addressed by state legislatures in order to allow these types of trials to proceed, especially for criminal cases. Civil trials would more readily accommodate these flexible trial solutions through the parties entering into a stipulation agreement or by proceeding as private jury trials through mediation or arbitration services.
These trial technology solutions could also accommodate more traditional dispute resolution practices such as mediation, arbitration and jury mediation but would probably not work as well for long and complex cases. The parties would have to be more organized and efficient in presenting cases. These trials would tend to disfavor surprise trial strategies or personality-driven advocacy where some attorneys count on persuasive argumentation over case facts to influence a jury.
But, in a strange way, online trials would accomplish what the courts have always aspired to be — a forum where fact-finders objectively and analytically evaluate the evidence in a case while minimizing the extraneous influence of attorney, witness, judicial and even other jury personalities.
We live in unprecedented times, but these challenges can also give us opportunities to create innovative solutions to solve seemingly insurmountable problems in order to preserve our system of justice and constitutional rights.
This article was originally published in
Law360
and is republished here with the author's permission.
|
|
|
|
What Jurors Say
- "We loved the experience. So much so that, at the end of the trial, we asked the judge if she could hire us on full time. The judge said that if she could she would. I wish I didn’t have to wait three years to do this again."
- "I learned so much about everything. About the law. About everything. I learned a lot. Hands down I know stuff now that I never knew. And I like that."
- "I appreciate the system a lot more now. Just seeing everything everybody has to go through; I just put myself in the plaintiff's and defendant's shoes and was hoping a jury would do the same for me if I were ever in court. So I have a newfound appreciation for it."
- "My favorite part was the interaction with the other jurors. We all got along really well. That was very interesting because my experience, from being on the lawyer’s side of things, was that this wasn't the case. But it was. And that was very nice."
- "All 12 of us had a really good time. We actually remained friends afterwards. And Sunday we’re all having a barbecue."
For more testimonials, including video interviews, click
here
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Look out for the May Newsletter!
|
Tune in next month for more articles by our judicial and academic advisors and testimonials from jurors who have recently finished serving on a civil jury.
|
|
|
|
Civil Jury Project, NYU School of Law
Wilf Hall, 139 MacDougal Street, Room 407, New York, NY 10012
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Susman
Executive Director
|
Michael Pressman
Research Fellow
|
|
Samuel Issacharoff
Faculty Director
|
Michael Elias Shammas
Research Fellow
|
|
Mark Drummond
Judicial Director
|
Kaitlin Villanueva
Admin. Assistant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
