Rosario v. City of New York
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:18-cv-04023
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rosario v. City of New York, Judge Schofield overruled defendants’ objection to excusing unvaccinated jurors from the scheduled trial.
The order affected potential unvaccinated jurors summoned for the trial and addressed the defendants’ objection. It did not exclude unvaccinated witnesses or parties from participating.
What happened
In Rosario v. City of New York, the defendants objected to excusing potential jurors who were not vaccinated against COVID-19 from serving at the scheduled jury trial.
The court rejected the objection, finding that unvaccinated jurors posed an increased risk of spreading COVID-19 and disrupting the trial. The court also rejected arguments that excluding them would undermine jury diversity or improperly limit civic participation.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered that the objection be overruled. The order addressed unvaccinated jurors, not the ability of unvaccinated witnesses or parties to participate in the trial.
The detailed version
- Rosario v. City of New York · No. 1:18-cv-04023
- Lorna Schofield
- Jan. 13, 2022
Background
A jury trial was scheduled to begin on January 25, 2022. On December 15, 2021, the defendants objected to the court excusing potential jurors for cause because they were unvaccinated against COVID-19.
Court’s reasoning
The court overruled the objection. It found that, given the conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic in New York and the high community-transmission risk reported for New York County, unvaccinated jurors created an undue risk of spreading COVID-19 to vaccinated jurors and an undue risk of disrupting the trial.
The court rejected the defendants’ argument that excluding unvaccinated people would undermine jury diversity. The defendants provided no supporting data, and the court relied on New York vaccination data showing no significant disparities by race or gender. The court acknowledged differences by age but found no reason to expect those differences to affect jury impartiality.
The court also rejected the argument that excluding unvaccinated jurors improperly suggested that only certain people could perform jury service. The court stated that unvaccinated people can serve impartially, but explained that the exclusion was based on the safety of trial participants and the risk of disruption during the period when the Omicron variant was taking hold. The court further rejected the argument that courthouse safety protocols eliminated the concern, because unvaccinated jurors could become infected outside the courthouse and disrupt the trial.
Finally, the court cited the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968, which permits courts to exclude a person summoned for jury service when that person’s service would likely disrupt the proceedings.
Order
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered that the defendants’ objection be overruled. The court clarified that the order concerned excusing unvaccinated jurors for cause. It did not foreclose unvaccinated witnesses or parties from participating in the trial.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.