Supremes Ban Idaho Jury Trials

Idaho’s Supreme Court has put a stop to jury trials until next year due to the COVID-19 virus.

“In order to address the continuing rise in the incidence of COVID-19 cases in the state, foster public safety, mitigate against the spread of the coronavirus, while recognizing the substantial resources being expended despite the high incidence rate preventing the holding of jury trials, pursuant to Idaho Court Administrative Rule 48, no jury trial, whether criminal or civil, shall commence in Idaho state courts before January 4,2021.”

The DOCUMENT FINAL-Order-Re-Commencement-of-Jury-Trials-11-9-20

Comments & Discussion

Comments are closed for this post.

  1. Now that's power
    Nov 10, 2020, 8:47 pm

    Power to absolutely do something, and power to see the hazard facing us all and act on it.

    Good for them.

  2. Boise Lawyer
    Nov 10, 2020, 9:04 pm

    This is a big deal in our country because the US Constitution guarantees the criminally accused a trial by “jury” that is also “speedy.” There is no apparent exception for pandemics, expenditure of “substantial resources,” and so forth.

    Undoubtedly somebody — in Idaho or elsewhere — will have to wait for a trial, eventually be convicted, and then appeal the conviction on the ground that the delay of their trial violated the sixth amendment and, therefore, the conviction was not constitutional. When it comes, I for one will be very intrigued to see how that appeal plays out. (YMMV when it comes to what counts as “intriguing.”)

  3. More info please
    Nov 11, 2020, 6:34 am

    What does this mean for a criminal trial? Will the accused remain out on bail? Will the DUI driver continue driving until trials are allowed? Can the right to a speedy trial be curtailed by the Idaho Supremes or is this a violation of US constitution?

    I can tell you there are chronic misdemeanor criminals behaving badly knowing the police are only focused on big stuff.

  4. Concerned Neighbor
    Nov 11, 2020, 7:33 am

    Everyone else in the world is using Zoom and other webcam applications. Judges already use it to speak with incarcerated criminals. There’s no reason not to use it for trials. There’s no reason to gut our constitutional right to a speedy trial.

  5. Ha! Totally unconstitutional. You could demand a jury trial, and if one isn’t given, you could have a better than average chance of charges being dropped, if you had a lawyer that knew the Constitution. And all for a virus with a survivability of 99% plus, depending on your age. And yet, people are giving up freedom and rights. So sad…some people will believe anything, and once they believe something, it’s tough for them to question themselves, because then they’d have to admit they’ve been fleeced. We’ve all been fleeced in one way or another. Admit it, and move on, and be stronger. I can’t wait to see what the next freedom /right they go after and people happily give away for “safety” because of this utter nonsense.

    Good night all, and Be Brave!–N

  6. Boise Lawyer
    Nov 12, 2020, 9:54 am

    Know what else has a survivability of 99% plus? Car crashes. That’s why I refuse to allow my right to travel to be infringed by dumb sheeple laws like speed limits, stop lights, and so forth. Because it’s about me and my freedom (however I define it). Not my community or safety of others.

    Nate is right that some people will believe anything, and once they believe something, it’s tough for them to question themselves. But, with all due respect, he might try looking in the mirror on that one.

  7. Thanks for your response Boise Lawyer…and Thanks to the Guardian for bringing this to our attention.


    Driving is not a Constitutional right, isn’t it a privilege, or so they say? And, I’ve heard this argument before, and I think it is lacking in proper parallels. As a matter of fact, I believe the driving rules to be fairly adequate as most people do.

    That being said,

    Car Crashes aren’t being used as a predicate to “lockdown” major swaths of our civilization.
    Car Crashes are not being used to unconstitutionally remove peoples rights to assemble, at church, or otherwise…
    Car Crashes are not being used to “suspend” trial by jury. (I will be reaching out to some state reps)
    Car Crashes are not being used to create many trillions of dollars to bailout mostly big biz/gov. and to give a small payoff as a penance to the small guy who’s job was just destroyed.

    Have you not seen what’s been going on in the rest of the world? The governments of Australia, England, Italy, and many other are imposing these draconian lockdowns and forcibly putting masks on people? It is inherently wrong for a government to do this.

    Some in this country are trying to cancel our most cherished holidays. Tell us how many family members we are allowed to be in the same room with. There has been a call to ban “dirty virus spreading” cash and to push us into digital currencies that are easier to manipulate. Theres been talks of forcibly vaccinating people. All the while, the fabric of our society is being destroyed.

    Physical social interactions are an important part of humanity. Propaganda has completely scared people into thinking they’re going to die, or if they don’t follow “proper protocols” (that are a false sense of security), they will kill someone unknowingly. And here comes the government, reliably keeping people safe for 1000’s of years. The Constitution put handcuffs on government for a reason.

    And anyone who independently looks at the data and digs through info and history, and questions the narrative… why they are dismissed as subhuman with no love for others, by those who have been told what to say and blindly do, by celebrities and pop stars.. Pretty clever really.

    Why can’t we question this, which is so obviously created by those with $ who want more power, to further an end that to them might justify the means.

    On a final note. Question everything. Do your own research. Don’t let your belief system blind you.
    (I promise to follow all of these rules as well)

    No more “Be Safe”… Time to speak out and “Be brave” –N

  8. Nate, Nope, I don’t believe your beliefs. The ICU is not overfull because of propaganda. The refrigerator trucks are not for storing propaganda. Yes agree, when you really believe something it’s hard to admit errors. Do look in the mirror Nate, you are wrong on this covid issue.

    As for court order. I think the speedy jury trial problem can be overcome while preserving rights And being covid safe. Yes the third option Nate. It’s puzzling why the court did this. The entire world is operating remotely on electronics. Why not a jury system too? Maybe decided by an old duffer who refuses to learn computers?

  9. Nate, apparently a well experienced lawyer and the next IDAHO Supreme Court justice replacement, is a big part of our current pandemic problem.
    Let’s all thank Nate. Thanks Nate!

    And in our next season of Hoax Reality TV, it will be the battle of “Nate vs The Idaho Supreme Court Chief Justice”.

    Nate, how about if you personally go to the Twin Falls St. Luke’s hospital and tell ALL those medical care workers (doctors, nurse, admin, EMS, firefighters, etc) THEY are just forcing you to ‘give up freedom and your rights’? Can you tell THEM personally that they are just believing ‘anything’ and they have been fleeced?

    And while you are at it, go talk to the patients too- be sure to tell em about your calculation of 99% survivability. I’m sure they’ll appreciate your expert knowledge.

    And when someone in TF has a heart- attack and can’t get immediate medical care because their nearby hospital is full– and 1/3 of the existing patients, are there — due to people like you, YOU will be the one to tell them ‘be brave’, right Nate? Be sure to talk with the family members too about your mantra. I’m sure they need the emotional comfort from YOU Nate.

  10. FAUX Easterner
    Nov 13, 2020, 12:40 pm

    History has proven that a trial by jury is a slap in the face of justice. Look how often juries have got it Wrong!! Other countries have gone to juries with a judge in the jury room, a panel of judges, or bench trials only.
    We need to have Betsy Russell weigh in in this one. What can Idaho legislators or Betsy herself do to help with what the Idaho supremes have done?!😷

  11. Hello all I appreciate your comments…not speaking sarcastically. I wish we all could have more discussions of open thoughts to discuss contraries of opinion, without fear of ridicule…while I disagree with some of your thoughts, I respect all of you for the discussion.

    That being said, I spoke with a local Senator about this…I’ll redact his name because it is off the record in nature…


    Yes, things are going well.  I do think that the courts are acting contrary to the constitution.  Let’s visit again.  When would be good?


    On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 5:21 PM nate wrote:

    Hello Senator ____, I hope all is well with you and your family, sir.

    A lot has happened in the world since our last correspondence!  

    I came across this and, if you have time, I was wondering  if I can hear your thoughts on the Idaho Supremes essentially suspending jury trials because of Covid. (link below)

    Wouldn’t the US Constitution Trump such order?  Seems pretty serious to me.

    Talk soon.


  12. Forgot to mention… I am one, who does not think jury duty is annoying. I think it is a cherished constitutional right, whereby, regular citizens can overrule the state, if they deem the charges to be false in nature. IDK, maybe a thought on checking the state is outdated these days. I hope not.

    Much love to the Guardian for all they do.

  13. Nate, You believe you are special and the people give a crap what you think. Nope, most people don’t.

    This problem is not well adapted to a simple point counterpoint argument format often used in low IQ media entertainment productions. Real life problem resolution often is a compromise.

  14. I believe the suspension of Jury Trials is designed to protect jurors from exposure to the virus. The jury process doesn’t lend itself to Zoom. The process requires a body of people brought together to debate the facts produced at trial and reach a verdict. Distractions are limited during a trial as a matter of necessity to insure that the decision is based on the facts produced at trial and not based on someone’s tweet or opinion.

    Those who believe the Constitution is a black and white set of rules governing everything in our lives have little understanding of our history or the Constitution. Just because the document doesn’t contain a pandemic amendment, does not mean government (which is nothing more than the collective consciousness of the people) cannot respond to a pandemic.

  15. Well….there goes the Constitution. And I just love how the tyrants like the Power Freak at the top of this comment board are applauding the end of the Republic. The Supreme court COULD have very well asked for a technical remedies to this “pandemic” …but they just decided to remove our rights. The elites have found their foil to lock us from life…a virus.

Get the Guardian by email

Enter your email address: