Arizona Judicial Branch


Register       Login

NEW! The Court acted on many pending rule petitions at its recent Rules Agenda.  

Click on the Amendments from Recent Rules Agendas link below to go directly to the amendments and orders for each one.

Message from the Chief Justice

Current Arizona Rules 

Amendments from Recent Rule Agendas

Rule Amendments (2006 to present) 

Advisory Committee on Rules of Evidence


Proposed Local Rules
This website allows you to electronically file and monitor court rule petitions and comments and to view existing rules of court, recent amendments of those rules, and pending rule petitions and comments. Any visitor to this site may view posts on this website, but to post a petition or comment you must register and log in. To view instructions on how to register and how to file a petition or comment, please visit our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page. 
PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 19 May 2010 08:29 PM by
 7 Replies
Topic is locked
Author Messages
Ethan Steele Law

11 Feb 2009 07:07 PM

    Petition to Establish a Rule Setting Guidelines for Jury Service by Court Employees


    145 S. 6TH AVE
    TUCSON, AZ 85701
    SBN: 09312

    Filed February 12, 2009

    REJECTED, August 31, 2010

    01 Feb 2010 02:28 PM
    John A. Furlong, Bar No. 018356
    General Counsel
    State Bar of Arizona
    4201 N. 24th Street, Suite 200
    Phoenix, AZ 85016-6288
    (602) 252-4804

    Comment of the State Bar of Arizona on Petition to Establish a Rule Setting Guidelines for Jury Service by Court Employees

    05 Feb 2010 04:29 PM
    Jeanne Hicks
    Jury Commissioner
    Superior Court in Yavapai County
    120 S. Cortez Street
    Prescott, Arizona 86303

    As legal citizens, I believe court employees are entitled to the same opportunities as any other citizen. If a court employee is summoned to appear in a trial in the same jurisdiction within which they work, they should be able to go through the jury selection process. It is the responsibility of the attorneys to question the potential jurors to get necessary information with which to decide whether or not to strike the individual from the jury or to allow them to be seated. If the attorney doesn't feel like the court employee could be a fair and impartial juror, they have the option to strike them.

    08 Feb 2010 05:02 PM
    Hon. Denise Lundin, Clerk
    Cochise County Superior Court
    P.O. Box CK
    Bisbee, AZ 85603

    I oppose the proposed rule change. Court staff should be able to perform their civic duty by serving on a jury in the same jurisdiction that they live and work in. There are other ways to ensure impartiality and the public should see that court staff stand ready to serve and are not of a special class to receive a bye from service.

    13 Apr 2010 12:27 PM
    Hon. Denise Lundin, President
    Arizona Association of Superior Court Clerks
    P.O. Box CK
    Bisbee, Arizona 85603

    The Arizona Association of Superior Court Clerks opposes the petition as unnecessary and adverse to the design of the jury trial process. The Clerks of the Superior Court in Arizona, most of whom are also their county’s jury commissioners, recognize that the opportunity to serve on a jury is a fundamental aspect of being a member of one’s community.

    Court employees, like any other citizen taxpayer, are an integral part of their community and should not be excluded from serving on a jury in the same jurisdiction where they work. The jury trial process provides ample opportunity to question, retain and remove potential jurors. Court employees follow a Code of Conduct that requires them to be fair and impartial. Even in the smallest communities around the state where juror pools are smaller, court employees, like any other citizen, can be expected to complete their juror questionnaires and respond to questions honestly and truthfully in carrying out their service as jurors.

    For the reasons stated above, the Arizona Association of Superior Court Clerks recommends denying the petition limiting jury service by court employees.

    06 May 2010 12:20 PM
    Kathrine Brauer
    Jury Commissioner, Pima County Superior Court
    110 W. Congress
    Tucson, AZ 85701

    As the Jury Commissioner for the Arizona Superior Court in Pima County, I oppose proposed rule petition R-09-0016, which would prohibit court employees from serving as jurors in the court in which they work and would require the Jury Commissioner to direct such court employees to serve in a different court within the jurisdiction. Statutes and rules of procedure already exist to deal with prospective jurors who may be biased. In addition, Jury Commissioners are not always able to merely “direct” prospective jurors to serve in a court other than the court to which they were summoned.

    A.R.S. 21-211 specifically provides that a person shall be disqualified to serve as a juror if the person is biased or prejudiced in favor of or against either of the parties. Arizona rules of civil and criminal procedure provide a process for determining whether a particular person is biased. In addition, during voir dire attorneys are able to ask questions of prospective jurors if the attorney has any concerns about a person’s ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror.

    The requirement that the Jury Commissioner direct court employees to serve in a different court is overly burdensome. It would require jury commissioners to identify and track court employees and maybe make costly technological changes. Jury Commissioners would have to devise a way to identify court employees in advance of their jury service and then change their court location. This could require costly changes to the qualification questionnaires sent to jurors. Most courts use jury management software to summon jurors. Transferring a juror from one court to another after they have been summoned is not a normal practice and would require most courts to spend money to change the software programs to accomplish this.

    The proposed rule is also overly broad in that it covers all court employees. Many court employees do not have any direct contact with attorneys or individual cases and so have no more information about individual defendants than any other member of the public. Jury pools should be as inclusive and representative as possible of the court’s jurisdiction. Court employees are members of the community and should be included in the prospective jury pool. If they do happen to know the defendant, or anything about a specific case, current laws and rules are in place to ensure that biased jurors are excused during voir dire.

    19 May 2010 04:05 PM
    Hon. James A. Soto
    Superior Court in Santa Cruz County
    P. O. Box 1929
    Nogales, AZ 85628
    Telephone: (520) 375-7730
    Facsimile: (602) 375-7733
    Chair, Committee on Superior Court


    19 May 2010 08:29 PM
    Pima County Bar Association
    177 North Church Avenue
    Tucson, AZ 85701-1117

    phone 520.623.8258

    by Joey A. Flynn (SBN 015430)
    2200 E. Speedway Blvd
    Tucson, AZ 85719
    phone: 520.547.7939
    fax: 520.547.7941
    Topic is locked