As of August 31, 2016
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
CPR POLICY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
COMPARISON OF ABA MODEL JUDICIAL CODE AND STATE VARIATIONS
RULE 2.8: Decorum, Demeanor, and Communication with Jurors
(A) A judge shall require order and decorum in proceedings before the court.
(B) A judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses,
lawyers, court staff, court officials, and others with whom the judge deals in an
official capacity, and shall require similar conduct of lawyers, court staff, court
officials, and others subject to the judge’s direction and control.
(C) A judge shall not commend or criticize jurors for their verdict other than in a
court order or opinion in a proceeding.
COMMENT
[1] The duty to hear all proceedings with patience and courtesy is not inconsistent with the duty
imposed in Rule 2.5 to dispose promptly of the business of the court. Judges can be efficient and
businesslike while being patient and deliberate.
[2] Commending or criticizing jurors for their verdict may imply a judicial expectation in future
cases and may impair a juror’s ability to be fair and impartial in a subsequent case.
[3] A judge who is not otherwise prohibited by law from doing so may meet with jurors who
choose to remain after trial but should be careful not to discuss the merits of the case.
Eleven (11) states have identical language (AR, CO, IN, KS, MD, MN, MT, NV, NH, OH, and
WA)
Eighteen (18) states have similar language (AZ, CA, CT, DC, HI, IA, ME, MO, NE, NM, ND,
OK, OR, PA, SD, TN, UT, and WY)
One (1) state has different language (DE)
AL
AK
AZ
Effective
9/1/2009
AR
Effective
7/1/2009
(C): Adds “but may express appreciation to jurors for their service to the judicial system and the
community” to end
[2]: Adds “There are several exceptions to this general rule, however, and with certain
qualifications judges may speak to a discharged jury following the return of a verdict. See
Arizona Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee, Opinion 01-01 (reissued January 22, 2003). This
rule does not preclude a judge from expressing appreciation to jurors for their service to the
judicial system and the community or from communicating with jurors personally, in writing, or
through court personnel to obtain information for the purpose of improving the administration of
justice” to end
Deletes [3]
Identical
1
As of August 31, 2016
CA
Effective
1/1/2013
CO
Effective
7/1/2010
CT
Effective
1/1/2011
DE
Effective
11/1/2008
DC
Effective
1/1/2012
FL
HI
Effective
1/1/2009
ID
Effective
7/1/2016
IL
IN
Effective
1/1/2009
IA
Effective
5/3/2010
Canon 3B(4). Changes “court staff and personnel” to “staff and court personnel”
Identical
(C) Adds to beginning of sentence: “Although a judge may thank jurors for their willingness to
serve”; adds to end of sentence after “instruction”: “order or opinion in a proceeding, if
appropriate.”
Adds [4]: This rule does not purport to prevent a judge from returning a jury for further
deliberations if its verdict is insufficient in amount, inaccurate, inconsistent with the court’s
instructions or otherwise improper in form or substance.
(A): replaces “shall” with “should”
(B): replaces “shall” with “should;” adds “respectful” after “dignified;” deletes “court staff, court
officials” from list of those with whom judge deals in official capacity; deletes “lawyers” and
replaces “court staff” with “judge’s staff” in list of those subject to judge’s direction; and adds
“including lawyers to the extent consistent with their role in the adversary process” to end
Deletes (C)
Replaces Comments: The duty to be respectful of others includes the responsibility to avoid
comment or behavior that can reasonably be interpreted as manifesting prejudice or bias towards
another on the basis of personal characteristics like race, sex, religion, national origin, disability,
age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
In court proceedings, judges or former judges participating as litigants or counsel should not be
called by their current or former titles or treated with greater familiarity or deference than other
participants.
(C) Adds to the end of the sentence: “but may express appreciation to jurors for their service to
the judicial system and the community.”
(C): adds “but may express appreciation to jurors for their service to the judicial system and the
community” to end
[2]: Deletes “may imply a judicial expectation in future cases and”
Deletes [3]
[3]: Adds to end: “Judges should be aware of the implications from Gillingham Construction, Inc.
v. Newby Wiggins Construction, 142 Idaho 15, 121 P.3d 946 (2005), which prohibits certain
communication with jurors by judges.”
Identical
(C) Adds to end, “but may express appreciation to jurors for their service to the judicial system
and the community.”
2
As of August 31, 2016
KS
Effective
3/1/2009
KY
MD
Effective
7/1/2010
MA
Effective
1/1/16
ME
Effective
9/1/2015
MI
MN
Effective
7/1/2009
MO
Effective
1/1/2012
MS
MT
Effective
1/1/2009
NE
Effective
1/1/2011
NV
Effective
1/19/2010
NH
Effective
4/1/2011
NJ
NM
Effective
1/1/2012
NY
NC
ND
Effective
Identical
Identical
(C): Adds “but may express appreciation to jurors for their service to the judicial system and the
community” after “proceeding”.
[2] Adds sentence “Such commendations or criticisms of verdicts could also be perceived as
calling into question the judge’s ability to rule impartially on any post-trial motions, or on
remand, in the same case.”
(B) Deletes “court officials” and adds “law enforcement and corrections officers, members of the
public”
(C) Adds “but may express appreciation to jurors for their service to the judicial system and the
community.” after “proceeding”
Identical
(C) Adds to the end: “but may express appreciation to jurors for their service to the judicial
system and the community.”
[2] Deleted
MO [2] is the same as MC [3]
Identical
[2] Adds to end: “However a judge may express appreciation to jurors for their service to the
judicial system and the community.”
Identical
Identical
(C) Adds to end: “but may express appreciation to jurors for their service to the judicial system
and the community.”
(C) Adds to the end: “but may express appreciation to jurors for their services to the judicial
system and the community”
3
As of August 31, 2016
7/1/2012
OH
Effective
3/1/2009
OK
Effective
4/15/2011
OR
Effective
12/1/2013
Identical
Comments:
[2]: Adds “This rule does not preclude a judge from expressing appreciation to jurors for their
service to the judicial system and the community or from communicating with jurors personally,
in writing, or through court personnel to obtain information for the purpose of improving the
administration of justice” to end
(C) Replaces “jurors for their verdict” with “the verdict of the jury;” Adds second sentence:
“However, after the conclusion of a trial a judge is encouraged to express appreciation to the
jurors for their service to the judicial system and to the community.”
OR Rule 3.7 title is identical to MCJC Rule 2.8. OR Rule 3.7 is similar to MCJC Rule 2.8.
Rule 3.7(A) is identical to MCJC Rule 2.8(A)
Rule 3.7(B) is identical to MCJC Rule 2.8(B)
PA
Effective
7/1/2014
SD
Effective
1/1/2006
TN
Effective
7/1/12
TX
UT
Effective
4/1/2010
VT
VA
WA
Effective
1/1/2011
WV
Effective
12/1/2015
Rule 3.7(C) is based on MCJC Rule 2.8(C): Replaces “commend” with “praise”; after the words
“other than in” deletes “court order or opinion” and replaces with “ruling”; after the word
“proceeding” adds the following: “,but a judge may thank and commend jurors for their service.
A judge who is not otherwise prohibited by law from doing so may meet with jurors who choose
to remain after trial but should be careful not to discuss the merits of the case.”
(C): Adds “This Rule does not prohibit a judge from expressing appreciation to the jurors for their
service to the judicial system and to the community. Judges are expected to maintain their
supervisory role over a deliberating jury.”
Model Code Rule 2.8 (A) corresponds to SD Canon 3B (3). Same as Model Code.
Model Code Rule 2.8 (B) corresponds to SD Canon 3B (4). Equivalent effect.
Model Code Rule 2.8 (C) corresponds to SD Canon 3B(11). Same, but SD adds that a judge may
express appreciation to jurors.
(C): Adds “…but may express appreciation to jurors for their service to the judicial system and
the community” to end.
[3]: Deletes “who is not otherwise prohibited by law from doing so”
(A): Adds “take reasonable measures to” after “shall”
(B): Adds “take reasonable measure to” before “require”
[1]: Replaces “promptly” with “competently and diligently”
Identical
(C): A judge shall not commend or criticize jurors for their verdict, but may express appreciation
to jurors for their service to the judicial system and community.
[2]: Adds sentence to end “A court order or opinion specifically addressing a juror’s conduct or
4
As of August 31, 2016
the jury’s findings is not prohibited by Rule 2.8(c).”
WI
(C) Adds after “proceeding:” “but may express appreciation to jurors for their service to the
WY
Effective judicial system and the community.”
7/1/2009
Copyright © 2016 American Bar Association. All rights reserved. Nothing contained in this
chart is to be considered the rendering of legal advice. The chart is intended for
educational and informational purposes only. We make every attempt to keep the chart as
accurate as possible. If you are aware of any inaccuracies in the chart, please send your
corrections or additions and the source of that information to John Holtaway, (312) 9885298, [email protected]
5