BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2011-2012 Regular Session B
1
4
1
AB 141 (Fuentes)
As Introduced: January 13, 2011
Hearing date: June 7, 2011
Code of Civil Procedure; Penal Code
MK:dl
JURORS: ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: AB 2217 (Fuentes) 2010-Vetoed
Support: Judicial Council; California District Attorneys
Association; The Civil Justice Association of
California; AFSCME; California Attorney General;
California Public Defenders Association
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 60 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD SEVERAL CHANGES BE MADE TO JURY INSTRUCTIONS TO PROVIDE
STATUTORY CLARIFICATION REGARDING IMPROPER USE OF ELECTRONIC OR
WIRELESS DEVICES TO COMMUNICATE, RESEARCH OR DISSEMINATE INFORMATION
CONCERNING AN ONGOING CASE?
(More)
AB 141 (Fuentes)
Page 2
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to make it clear that admonishments
by the court to juries regarding communications include
communication by means of electronic and wireless devices to
communicate, research, or disseminate information about an
ongoing case.
Existing law requires the court in a civil proceeding during a
jury trial to admonish the jury that it is their duty not to
converse with, or permit themselves to be addressed by, any
other person on any subject of the trial. The court is required
to provide the admonishment when the jurors are permitted to
separate during the trial, and when the case is submitted to the
jury. (Civil Code � 611.)
This bill provides that the courts shall clearly explain, as
part of the admonishment that the prohibition on research,
dissemination of information, and conversation applies to all
forms of electronic and wireless communication.
Existing law requires that an officer in a civil proceeding,
having the jury under his or her charge, shall not permit any
communication to be made to them, or make any himself or
herself. (Civil Code � 613.)
This bill provides that communication includes any type of
communication including any form of electronic or wireless
communication.
Existing law provides that specified acts or omissions in
respect to a court of justice are contempts of the authority of
the court. (Code of Civil Procedure � 1209)
This bill provides that the willful disobedience by a juror of a
court admonishment related to the prohibition on any form of
communication or research about the case, including all forms of
electronic or wireless communication or research is contempt of
court.
(More)
AB 141 (Fuentes)
Page 3
Existing law specifies that specified contempts of court are a
misdemeanor. (Penal Code � 166)
This bill provides that the willful disobedience by a juror of a
court admonishment related to the prohibition on any form of
communication or research about the case, including all forms of
electronic or wireless communication or research is a contempt
of court that is a misdemeanor.
Existing law requires the court in a criminal proceeding during
a jury trial to admonish the jury that it is their duty not to
converse with, or permit themselves to be addressed by, any
other person on any subject of the trial. The court is required
to provide the admonishment after the jury has been sworn and
before the people's opening address, at each adjournment of the
court, and when the jurors are permitted by the court to
separate after the case is submitted to the jury. (Penal Code �
1122.)
This bill provides also that jurors shall not converse among
themselves, or with anyone else, conduct research or disseminate
information on any subject connected with the trial.
This bill provides that the court shall clearly explain, as part
of the admonishment that the prohibition on conversation
research and dissemination of information applies to all forms
of electronic and wireless communication.
Existing law requires that an officer in a criminal proceeding,
having the jury under his or her charge, shall not permit any
communication to be made to them, or make any himself or
herself. (Penal Code � 1128.)
This bill clarifies that communication means any form of
electronic or wireless communication.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
(More)
AB 141 (Fuentes)
Page 4
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation.
As these cases have progressed, prison conditions have
continued to be assailed, and the scrutiny of the federal courts
over California's prisons has intensified.
On June 30, 2005, in a class action lawsuit filed four years
earlier, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California established a Receivership to take
control of the delivery of medical services to all California
state prisoners confined by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). In December of 2006,
plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against CDCR sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
three-judge federal panel issued an order requiring California
to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design
capacity -- a reduction at that time of roughly 40,000 inmates
-- within two years. The court stayed implementation of its
ruling pending the state's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On May 23, 2011, the United States Supreme Court upheld the
decision of the three-judge panel in its entirety, giving
California two years from the date of its ruling to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity, subject
to the right of the state to seek modifications in appropriate
circumstances.
In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, in early
2007 the Senate Committee on Public Safety began holding
legislative proposals which could further exacerbate prison
overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
(More)
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Existing law requires that at specified intervals, the
court in a jury trial to admonish the jury that it is
their duty not to converse with, or permit themselves
to be addressed by, any other person on any subject of
the trial.
Although this admonition arguably includes the use of
electronic communications, the fact that this kind of
communication is not expressly included has resulted
in increased problems in courts across the country.
For example, in one case the conviction of a state
senator in Pennsylvania is being appealed because
jurors discussed the case on Facebook and Twitter. In
another case, a $12.6 million verdict was appealed
because a juror's Twitter message sent before and
after the trial showed that he was biased against the
Defendant. "Tweeting" and "Googling" jurors have
caused numerous mistrials.
2. Communication Includes Wireless Communication and Research
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. While communication and research
implicitly include wireless communication, there have been
incidents in California and other places where jurors have used
Facebook or twitter to communicate with each other or have been
found to have done independent electronic research during the
course of a trial. This bill takes the implicit inclusion of
electronic communications and statutorily makes such
communications explicitly included in the admonishments. It also
makes clear that a violation of an admonishment against using
electronic communications is punishable as misdemeanor contempt.
(More)
AB 141 (Fuentes)
Page 6
In support the Judicial Council states:
The council is extremely concerned that jurors' use of
electronic devices during the course of a trial is
becoming an increasingly significant threat to the
integrity of the justice system. While existing law
may indeed cover the improper use of electronic
communications by jurors, the council believes a clear
statutory directive that the admonishments include
modern technological means of communication is needed.
In addition, given the importance of the admonition,
the statutory clarification that violators may be held
in contempt of court is also important, and would
provide the court with necessary enforcement tools for
use in appropriate cases.
***************
"