(1) Do you hold any type of trial or any aspect of trial via videoconference (e.g., out-of-state witness)?
Salinger, J. I have held two complete bench trials by video conference, once during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic and once because one of the attorneys became sick with COVID on the eve of trial. I hope never to have to conduct an entire trial by video conference again.
That said, I am open to conducting parts of a trial by video hookup where necessary or appropriate, for example if a witness lives far away and will testify for a very short time, or cannot reasonably attend in person.
New audio-visual equipment installed in both BLS courtrooms in early 2025 makes it much easier to have witnesses, or if need be lawyers, participate in trials or other proceedings by video conference technology.
Krupp, J. I have not held a trial by videoconference. I have had witnesses testify in evidentiary proceedings (e.g., a civil trial, various hearings) by videoconference. I would consider allowing a witness to testify by videoconference, particularly where all parties agree. It is often cheaper and easier for all concerned to allow such testimony by videoconference rather than require the parties to take a video deposition to preserve trial testimony of a witness who is otherwise unavailable.
Squires-Lee, J. I have tried one bench trial by videoconference but during the height of the pandemic. I am unlikely to do other full trials by videoconference. I would consider having individual witnesses testify by video conference if the parties agree and there is a good reason to proceed that way.
Barry-Smith, J. Outside of extreme conditions such as presented by COVID, I would not consider a virtual trial. Although I would have a high bar for presenting individual trial witnesses by video, I would consider it for compelling reasons.
(2) Do you typically schedule full-day or half-day trials? Does the schedule differ between jury and bench trials?
Salinger, J. I usually try BLS cases from 9am to 1pm, whether it is a jury trial or a bench trial. I will go into the afternoon if necessary to accommodate a witness’s scheduling constraints. But generally, while on trial I need the time after 1pm to attend to other cases, by holding hearings and working on decisions.
A small quibble: a 9am to 1pm schedule is 2/3 of a 9-4 schedule, after subtracting a short morning break from both and a lunch break from the latter. So, if you refer to a 9-1 schedule as calling for half-days, I may protest.
Krupp, J. Jury and bench trials are generally held from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. Over the course of a week, I can and generally will find one or two days when the trial day can go until 4 p.m. Such scheduling issues are usually known and discussed by the time of the final trial conference.
Squires-Lee, J. I try cases from 9 am – 1 pm with some flexibility as required.
Barry-Smith, J. Typically 9am-1pm but I am likely to schedule some full days in a multi-week trial. A topic of discussion at the final trial conference.
(3) Do you set time limits for trials? If so, under what circumstances and what are they?
Salinger, J. I have set time limits for trials only a few times, when I was concerned that counsel would fail to complete the trial by the time that they promised me and the jury unless I set and enforced explicit time limits. It has always worked quite well. I keep a running tally of time used and can tell the parties at the end of each trial day where they stand. In each case the parties did not come close to using all their allotted time.
Krupp, J. I have not had to set time limits over a party’s objection. At the final trial conference, I talk about each side’s case in detail, including how long their direct examination will be of key witnesses. I then come up with an estimate of the duration of the trial. I usually tell the prospective jurors how long I expect the case will take based on my discussion with the lawyers. I update the jurors daily about whether we are on schedule. No one wants to upset the jurors’ expectations.
In one case all parties requested that I give each side a set number of hours and hold them to that amount of time. In that instance, I kept time, periodically updated the parties about how much time they had each used, and let the jury know that each side had been given a total amount of time. The process worked well for the court and the jury, but I believe it put considerable stress on the lawyers, who had to keep the time limit in mind when deciding whether and how to question particular witnesses.
Squires-Lee, J. No, but I may be persuaded in the right situation.
Barry-Smith, J. I have not set time limits, but may do so in the right circumstances.
(4) In general, how do you conduct jury voir dire? Do you allow counsel to ask questions on voir dire?
Salinger, J. I have always welcomed attorney-conducted voir dire.
If we are using individual voir dire, I will ask a set of questions to the entire venire and then ask additional questions to each prospective juror individually. If I have not excused the juror for cause, I will then let the lawyers follow up on answers to my questions, ask about anything in or missing from the written juror questionnaire, and ask questions on any additional topics that I have approved in advance during the final trial conference.
If we are using panel voir dire, I will conduct more limited questioning of jurors to determine whether they seem able to sit on the jury. Some of that questioning will be done individually, and I let the lawyers follow up on those answers during the individual questioning. But most of the questioning by counsel will take place when they speak with each panel of prospective jurors.
Under either method, I am not a fan of supplemental written juror questionnaires.
Lawyers need to read, understand, and follow Superior Court Rule 6, which governs jury selection; pay particular attention to the provision listing lines of questioning that are improper.14 In addition, avoid any question the fair answer to which would be, “It depends on what the evidence shows.”
Please remember that individual voir dire is not an opportunity to learn everything about what makes each prospective juror tick. Trial lawyers’ training and instinct in conducting depositions is to learn everything possible, leaving no stone unturned. Voir dire is very different. You will want to pose just a few short, open-ended questions that focus on your key criteria for selecting jurors and that are aimed at getting each prospective juror to provide a narrative answer.
Also, do not expect or demand that prospective jurors answer voir dire questions with lawyerly precision. Normal humans may say “I think so” or “I guess,” but their tone and manner make clear they mean “Yes.” If a potential juror says “I think I can be fair” in a firm and declarative tone, do not insist that they add, “By that I meant I can definitely, without reservation, be completely fair to both sides.” If you try to pin down every prospective juror, the way you might with an adverse witness during a deposition, you will annoy them and may not accomplish much else.
Please be aware that the Superior Court now has official model jury empanelment scripts that judges may use or adapt as they see fit.15
Krupp, J. I permit panel voir dire, attorney-conducted voir dire at the sidebar, or attorney-conducted voir dire in other formats. I have used supplemental juror questionnaires as another way of assessing juror bias. Having presided over more than two dozen cases in which panel voir dire was used, I have been persuaded that panel voir dire is an incredibly powerful tool to detect juror bias and to assess the suitability of jurors for a particular case. It has been under-used since it was adopted as an option in Massachusetts.
Squires-Lee, J. I permit attorney conducted individual voir dire and panel voir dire. If the parties opt for panel voir dire, I will limit the questions that are asked of each juror during the individual voir dire stage. I will also give you a time limit for the panel portion of panel voir dire. I have used supplemental questionnaires in certain types of cases. Counsel sometimes need to be reminded that the goal of voir dire is to select a fair and impartial jury, not to interrogate each potential jury the way you would depose an adverse party.
Barry-Smith, J. This topic will be discussed at the final trial conference and I will consider the parties’ preferences. As a general matter, in civil cases I prefer panel voir dire conducted by the lawyers. I often strongly encourage lawyers to empanel in that manner, and sometimes order it even if the attorneys disagree. I favor panel voir dire in most cases because: i) I am convinced panel voir dire adequately discloses bases for lawyers to make cause or peremptory challenges; ii) it provides a significantly better experience for prospective jurors; and iii) it is generally more efficient, usually allowing trial to start on Day One, at least with opening statements. If panel voir dire is not used, I use individual voir dire where prospective jurors are questioned first by me and then by each of the lawyers, using questions that have been discussed in advance.
(5) Do you have a process for the sequence in which counsel exercise peremptory challenges?
Salinger, J. I usually alternate between opposing parties, changing each time we seat a juror. Plaintiffs exercise challenges first when we are filling odd-numbered seats, and defendants go first when we are filling even-numbered seats. That makes it easier for me to keep track of who goes first.
Krupp, J. With attorney-conducted voir dire at the sidebar, I usually require attorneys to exercise their peremptory challenges after we see each juror. In that context, we alternate the order of exercising peremptory challenges after each juror. With panel voir dire, after the attorney questioning of the first panel, I will require plaintiff to exercise its peremptory challenges until content, and then have defendant exercise its peremptory challenges until content, with no back strikes. The order is reversed with respect to the second panel.
Squires-Lee, J. With individual voir dire, I generally require counsel to exercise preemptory challenges after each juror is found indifferent. I will alternate who goes first. With panel voir dire, each party must exercise peremptory challenges on the seated panel. The remaining jurors are seated and the parties may not back strike.
Barry-Smith, J. Whether panel or individual voir dire, I alternate between parties the exercise of peremptory challenges.
(6) Do you exclude witnesses or exhibits that are not listed in the pretrial memorandum, either sua sponte or by motion of the party?
Salinger, J. I will exclude an undisclosed witness or exhibit if the opposing party can show they are unfairly prejudiced by the surprise. I do not do so sua sponte.
Krupp, J. When it comes to exhibits, I do not police compliance with the pretrial memorandum. If a lawyer objects to an exhibit, prejudice is the principal concern. Was the exhibit produced in discovery? Was it the subject of questioning during a deposition? Is it being introduced as part of witness’ direct examination (i.e. was using it foreseeable), or during cross-examination or unexpected impeachment of a witness? The answers to these questions are relevant. As for a new witness, I am more likely to question the lawyer sua sponte, particularly if I have carefully reviewed each party’s anticipated witnesses in advance. If you expect to call a witness or introduce an exhibit that was not previously disclosed, it is best to alert opposing counsel and the court as early as possible.
Squires-Lee, J. I will judge the situation based on fundamental fairness.
Barry-Smith, J. Very case-specific and circumstances-specific. I follow the guidance provided by Judge Krupp.
(7) Do you strictly limit the scope of expert testimony at trial to matters explicitly disclosed in expert reports, either sua sponte or by motion of the party?
Or do you permit an expert to testify on matters related to but not specifically described in the reports?
Salinger, J. I will bar an expert witness from testifying about matters not specifically disclosed if the opposing party can show they are unfairly prejudiced by the surprise. I do not do so sua sponte.
Krupp, J. I generally limit an expert’s testimony to matters contained in the expert disclosures, but I rely on the opposing party to bring issues to my attention.
Squires-Lee, J. I will bar an expert witness from testifying about matters not specifically disclosed if the opposing party can show they are unfairly prejudiced by the testimony. I do not do so sua sponte.
Barry-Smith, J. I will bar an expert witness from testifying about matters not specifically disclosed if the opposing party can show they are unfairly prejudiced by the testimony. I do not do so sua sponte.
(8) What do you prefer that attorneys include or not include in proposed jury instructions?
Salinger, J. Please be aware that the Superior Court now has a growing body of official model jury instructions, including model versions of the instructions that apply in every case; judges may use or adapt these models as they see fit.16 We welcome lawyers’ feedback on the model instructions. As the introduction to these models on the Superior Court website notes:
These Model Jury Instructions have been drafted by a committee of Superior Court judges. They are designed to be legally accurate and easy for jurors to understand and for judges and practitioners to use. The instructions will be revised regularly to keep current with developments in statutory and case law. They are published here in both PDF and searchable Microsoft Word format, and are accompanied by a Table of Contents organized by topic.
These Model Jury Instructions are intended to be just that—models. Judges have broad discretion and inherent authority to decide how to instruct a jury, whether it is by adapting these models, crafting their own instructions, or starting with some other model.
* * *
The Superior Court welcomes input regarding these instructions. Please forward your comments or suggestions to Superior Court Legal Counsel Alex Philipson at alex.philipson@jud.state.ma.us.
Counsel should read and think about these models before drafting their own proposed jury instructions.
My aim in every case is to craft jury instructions focused on the particular special questions that we need the jury to answer. So I would like the parties to propose a jury verdict slip as early as possible, ideally before trial. I also welcome proposed jury questions tailored to the case and the questions we will put to the jury.
I do not need the parties to give me copies of model instructions that I already have access to. Nor do I need proposed forms of all the general instructions that I deliver in every case; I tend not to look at those at all.
Krupp, J. A party’s proposed jury instructions should focus on the core legal issues in the case. In the usual case, I do not need general instructions or proposed instructions about how the jury should handle its deliberations.
I will usually provide counsel with a draft set of instructions one or two days before charging the jury, followed by a charge conference. It is quite useful if counsel is prepared at or before the charge conference to provide specific suggested changes to the language in my draft instructions.
Squires-Lee, J. Counsel should focus on the specific substantive instructions they are requesting or areas which the model (MCLE or Superior Court) instructions do not address. I will give counsel a fairly complete set of instructions towards the latter half of the trial and schedule a charge conference before the Plaintiff rests. The charge conference is the opportunity to address what I have proposed.
Barry-Smith, J. I do not need any general instructions from the parties. I routinely rely on the Superior Court Model Instructions when available for the claims at issue. The parties should use those model instructions as a starting point and focus on any alterations or additions they propose, as to the substantive claims. I will also hear requests for additional instructions as the trial progresses. I typically provide counsel with a draft set of instructions so that we can have a meaningful discussion at the charge conference. I expect counsel to read the draft before the charge conference and to be ready to suggest any alternative language.
(9) What process do you use in charging the jury?
Salinger, J. I provide counsel with a draft of my instructions well before the end of trial, give them a chance to review and think about my draft, and then conduct a jury charge conference in which I ask counsel to tell me what changes they would like me to consider making to my draft.
Then, when I charge the jury, I will provide every juror with a copy of my final written instructions and invite them to read along if that will help them absorb and understand what I am saying. My experience and some academic research suggest that this has a dramatically positive impact on juror understanding of the jury instructions. Each juror then has their own copy of the instructions that they can refer to during the jury’s deliberations.
I split my charge by delivering my substantive instructions about the special questions before closing arguments, pausing for closing arguments, and then delivering my general instructions about how to evaluate evidence and jury deliberations. I closely follow the Superior Court’s new “Civil Jury Instruction Template,”17 pausing for closing arguments just before the “Role of the Jury” section.
Krupp, J. I usually charge the jury from the well of the courtroom. I give each juror a copy of my instructions. I allow the jurors to mark up the draft as I go through the instructions and take their copy with them into the jury deliberation room. I ordinarily do not split my charge, but I have done so on the parties’ request.
Squires-Lee, J. I always split my charge with the substantive instructions followed by closing arguments followed by general instructions. I do so because social science research shows that human beings cannot listen for more than a half hour or so before needing a break. I will give counsel a written version to follow along and will give the deliberating jury a written version to use while they deliberate.
Barry-Smith, J. I almost always split my charge, giving the substantive instructions on the claims before closings and the balance of instructions after closings. I will provide counsel with the final version of the charge before I charge the jury. I provide the jury with several copies of my instructions to use during their deliberations.
(10) Do you allow jurors to take notes during trial?
Salinger, J. Yes, always.
Krupp, J. Yes. Usually we pass out notebooks after the opening statements.
Squires-Lee, J. Yes, always.
Barry-Smith, J. Yes.
(11) Do you permit parties to provide jurors with notebooks of exhibits?
Salinger, J. Yes. However, juries now expect to have exhibits shown to them electronically, and are surprised if asked to follow along using a physical notebook. The parties should confer, try to reach agreement on the most effective way to present evidence in that particular case, and propose an appropriate process during the final trial conference.
Krupp, J. Jurors do not want to be left out. They want to see what everyone else is talking about. Juror notebooks of some subset of all of the exhibits is a great way to allow the jurors to follow along. Blowing up exhibits, or projecting exhibits on a screen, is another excellent way of including the jurors. In a long trial, think about using mixed media to keep the jurors engaged.
Once a juror notebook is given to a juror, it belongs to the juror. The juror may highlight or make notes on the documents in the notebook. As a result, the juror notebook may not be “taken back” by the lawyers to add exhibits. Juror notebooks may be supplemented by providing additional pages with appropriate tabs for the jurors to insert into their notebooks.
Squires-Lee, J. Yes, and with the caveat described by Judge Krupp about adding to the notebooks.
Barry-Smith, J. Yes. Attorneys should jointly consider whether documents on screens will suffice for jurors, or whether binders of documents are more suitable.
(12) Do you allow jurors to submit questions during the presentation of evidence at trial?
Salinger, J. No. I have done so twice at the request of all parties. The first time the jurors asked just a few questions that were very focused and quite helpful. The second time the jurors proposed long lists of questions, most of which I had to exclude; the process was time consuming, disruptive, and added no value. That experience left me skeptical about letting jurors try to take control of the presentation of evidence away from the lawyers.
Krupp, J. No.
Squires-Lee, J. Yes, always. I instruct the jury in my pre-charge and in the final charge that their questions must comply with the rules of evidence so they should not be upset if their question is not asked, they cannot speculate about the answer, and they cannot give the answers to their questions disproportionate weight. I use the following procedure: after both sides have completed their examination of a witness – direct, cross, re-direct, re-cross – jurors can submit questions with their seat number identified. I review those questions with counsel at sidebar for compliance with the rules of evidence. I may change the questions slightly if I can do so without altering the intent. I then pose the acceptable questions to the witness and allow both sides follow up – limited to the questions posed by the jury.
I have found juror questions to be exceedingly insightful and they do not interfere with trial efficiency. Further, I believe allowing questions invests the jurors in the evidence presentation, focuses them on details they may have missed or view as important, and keeps them focused and engaged. Finally, we tell jurors that they are the judges of the facts. This gives them some ability to seek information they view as relevant and material. Obviously, the question is not asked if it seeks irrelevant, inadmissible, or prejudicial information.
Barry-Smith, J. No.
(13) Do you allow the parties to determine the technology they want to use during trials? What happens when counsel cannot agree?
Salinger, J. New audio-visual equipment installed in both BLS courtrooms in early 2025 makes this easy. We now have permanent display technology that everyone can use. Parties may connect their own electronic devices to our systems and use the courtroom equipment to display documents, play videos, let the audience listen to recorded board meetings, or share any other kind of electronic evidence or materials with the court and jury. More information on the electronic display of evidence in BLS courtrooms is available at our website.18
Krupp, J. Yes. Any technology brought into the courtroom by one party must be available to all parties. This may include providing the personnel necessary to operate the technology.
Squires-Lee, J. I agree with all my colleagues.
Barry-Smith, J. Yes. Although I expect parties to reach agreement on these issues, because of the BLS courtroom technology, it does not pose a concern if each side used their own technology.
(14) Do you have any requirements, recommendations, or tips for lawyers in presenting, publishing, or handling a large number of exhibits (>100) at trial?
Salinger, J. Here are a few tips about trial exhibits.
Limit the number of exhibits that you offer at trial. Discovery in a BLS case will often unearth a large volume of emails and other documentation. There is no need to introduce all of that into evidence, however. Parties that introduce hundreds of exhibits usually ask the jury or judge to focus and decide the case based on a small subset of them. Which means most of the others probably did not have to be introduced into evidence.
Summary Documents. Summaries of voluminous financial, accounting, or other records are admissible into evidence.19 A summary exhibit that is a compilation of parts of many other exhibits may also be admissible.20 Such summaries or compilations can be a very effective way to distill this kind of information; trial counsel should use them more often.
Index. If you expect there will be more than a handful of exhibits, the parties should keep a running index in a form that everyone agrees may be given to the jury or judge at the end of the trial. Each exhibit should be described or unidentified in a completely neutral way that will let the jurors or judge find an exhibit even if they failed to make note of the exhibit number.
Electronic Exhibits. If any of the exhibits in a jury trial are in electronic form (such as a spreadsheet in native Excel format, or a copy of a television advertisement) and will need to be accessed or played on an appropriate device for the jury to consider them while deliberating, the parties will need to provide a tablet or laptop that the jury may use to do so.
I recently conducted a BLS jury trial in which we ended up with well over 200 exhibits, the official exhibits were in paper form, but all exhibits were presented to the jury electronically during the trial. The parties provided the deliberating jury with a clean laptop, electronic copies of all the exhibits, and a searchable electronic copy of the index. The jurors really appreciated being able to search the index and access the exhibits electronically. Their ability to do so probably shaved days off their deliberations.
Krupp, J. BLS cases are often heavy document cases. Do not lose the jurors in the sea of documents. Think about ways to pare down the documents you need. If you must introduce many documents, work hard to keep the case interesting for the jurors. There are many software products available that allow a document to be projected on a screen, a portion to be highlighted, and then the highlighted portion to be blown up so it can be seen at a distance by the jurors. Making sure the jurors know which part of a document you are addressing is key to keeping the jurors engaged.
Squires-Lee, J. I agree with Judge Salinger. In particular with his reminder that less is more and making it easy for the jury is better.
Barry-Smith, J. I agree with the advice from Judge Salinger and Judge Krupp.
(15) Do you have any preferences regarding the use of videotaped deposition testimony in lieu of live testimony?
Are you preferences different for expert witnesses?
Salinger, J. Videotaped testimony is rarely as effective as live testimony. I recall a trial some years ago when a party presented their expert’s testimony through a 2.5 hour video recording. I called for a break halfway through, so the jury could stretch their legs and try to wake back up. Without missing a beat, one juror cried out, “Oh, Thank God!!” If you must use videotaped testimony, for example because the witness has died or is otherwise unavailable, work with the other side to edit the recording down to the essentials.
Krupp, J. I disagree somewhat with Judge Salinger. If you are going to play a videotaped deposition, make sure your editing of the videotape includes enough background questions so that the jury understands who the witness is, where the witness fits into the case, and puts the witness’ testimony in context. Too often I have seen videotaped testimony so highly edited that the jury is largely lost in following it.
Squires-Lee, J. I agree with my colleagues.
Barry-Smith, J. I will typically allow videotape testimony if parties have a decent reason to request it, but parties should be careful taking that route. Videotaped testimony rarely will have the impact of live testimony and jurors likely will have difficulty staying focused. Preference for live testimony is even greater with expert witnesses.
(16) Do you have any other tips or preferences for lawyers trying BLS cases?
Salinger, J. Be polite and professional at all times. Civility is required. Nastiness and pettiness never produce effective trial advocacy.
Krupp, J. No.
Squires-Lee, J. Lawyers often lose focus on the people who matter – the jurors. Jurors pay very close attention to everything that happens in the Courtroom. Any incivility – to opposing counsel, co-counsel, the person running the technology, the clerk, the court officer, or the judge – is observed, digested, and judged. Jurors pay close attention and dislike repetition for its own sake. Their time is very valuable. They complain most about repetition. Lawyers need to make things easy for jurors – whether by making sure jurors can see an exhibit or are on the right page of an exhibit, by using summaries or chalks, by using goalposts or clear transitions, or just making sure that witnesses speak in plain English – lawyers need to make it easy for jurors to keep up and follow along.
Barry-Smith, J. No.
| Date published: | April 1, 2022 |
|---|---|
| Last updated: | January 14, 2026 |