AUSTIN - A joint petition for mandamus filed in the Texas Supreme Court last month has garnered support from multiple groups requesting that justices not allow a forced virtual trial to go forward.
Court records show the petition was brought by Owen Merrell and Jeanna East – two parties currently litigating an automobile collision lawsuit. East filed the suit back in 2018, alleging Merrell negligently rear-ended her vehicle.
The matter was set for a virtual trial on July 13 but both parties objected to having a virtual trial. The trial court overruled and the First Court of Appeals denied mandamus relief on July 8, court records show.
The parties then filed their petition in the Supreme Court on July 11, questioning whether the trial abused its discretion.
Court records show multiple amicus curiae briefs have been filed in support of the parties, including a brief from the Texas Trial Lawyers Association.
“Whether the legal event is a trial, a bail hearing, or an immigration case, the use of video technology changes the landscape,” the TTLA brief states. “The parties’ joint objection to a virtual jury trial effectively expressed these valid concerns, but the Respondent abused her discretion by overruling those objections. This Court should grant mandamus relief.”
A brief filed by the Texas Chapters of the American Board of Trial Advocates argues that a forced virtual jury trial unconstitutionally excludes certain segments of the population from exercising their right to serve on a jury.
Court records also show that the Texas Civil Justice League submitted an amicus letter on Aug. 15, asking the Supreme Court to grant the writ of mandamus and order the trial court to vacate its order and proceed with an in-person jury trial.
“Remote proceedings can be used very effectively to increase access and dispose of some types of matters efficiently,” TCJL writes. “But giving trial courts the unilateral power to force parties into remote adversarial proceedings substantially impairs their constitutional rights, no matter how ‘good’ the technology might be.
“As more trial courts decide to go down this road on their own, this Court will be asked time and time again for guidance. Without some clarity going forward, parties such as Mr. Merrell and Ms. East will have to settle for a process they believe is inferior to what the Constitution entitles them—at least until expensive and lengthy appeals eventually inform them and all of us otherwise.”
Case No. 22-0556