BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 141
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 6, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 141 (Fuentes) - As Introduced: January 13, 2011
Policy Committee: JudiciaryVote:
10-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill:
1)Requires the courts, as part of the admonishment to jurors, to
clearly explain the prohibition on communication or research
about the case, including the use of electronic or wireless
communication, and requires the court officer in charge of the
jury to prevent these activities.
2)Stipulates that violation of the prohibitions in (1) is
contempt of court, which is a misdemeanor.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Negligible costs for the courts statewide to implement the
above.
2)Minor non-reimbursable costs to the counties for prosecution
of alleged violations, offset to some extent by fine revenues.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . It is standard procedure for a court to admonish
jurors of their duty not to converse with others or conduct
independent research until a verdict is rendered. Recent use
of electronic and wireless devices by jurors, however, has
caused mistrials, overturned convictions, and court delays.
In 2009 a San Francisco Superior Court judge dismissed 600
potential jurors after several acknowledged going online to
research the criminal case before them. Additionally, in 2001
AB 141
Page 2
a federal drug trial in Florida ended in a mistrial when eight
jurors admitted to conducting internet research on the case
they were hearing.
In response, AB 141 codifies an informal practice among trial
courts to authorize the courts to appropriately admonish
jurors against the use of electronic and wireless devices to
communicate, research, or disseminate information about an
ongoing case. The bill also amends the civil and criminal
contempt statutes to grant courts the power to enforce the
admonishment.
2)Prior Legislation . This bill is identical to the author's AB
2217 of 2010, which was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger, who
argued that the specified admonishment would be better handled
through court rules rather than statute. The Judicial
Council, however, supports this statutory approach, arguing in
part that clarifying that violators may be held in contempt
would provide the court with necessary enforcement tools.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081