BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 141|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
CONSENT
Bill No: AB 141
Author: Fuentes (D)
Amended: As introduced
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 6-0, 6/7/11
AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Harman, Liu, Price, Steinberg
NO VOTE RECORDED: Calderon
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 4-0, 6/21/11
AYES: Evans, Blakeslee, Corbett, Leno
NO VOTE RECORDED: Harman
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 60-0, 4/14/11 (Consent) - See last page
for vote
SUBJECT : Jurors: electronic communications
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill (1) adds to existing jury
admonishments the duty not to conduct research or
disseminate information and also requires the court to
clearly explain, as part of that admonishment, that the
prohibition on research, dissemination of information, and
conversation applies to all forms of electronic or wireless
communication, (2) clarifies that existing prohibitions of
communications between the officer having the jury under
CONTINUED
AB 141
Page
2
his charge and members of that jury includes electronic or
wireless communications, and (3) makes the willful
disobedience by a juror of a court admonishment related to
the prohibition of any form of communication or research
about the case, including all forms of electronic or
wireless communication or research, a contempt of court and
a misdemeanor.
ANALYSIS : Existing law guarantees a criminal defendant's
right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of
the state and district wherein the crime shall have been
committed, and to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against
him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in
his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his
defense. (United States Constitution, Sixth Amendment, as
applied to the states through the 14th Amendment's Due
Process Clause; See Apodaca v. Oregon (1972) 406 U.S. 404.)
Existing law requires that if the jury is permitted to
separate, either during the trial or after the case is
submitted to them, the court must admonish the jurors that
it is their duty not to converse with, or allow themselves
to be addressed by any other person, on any subject of the
trial, and that it is their duty not to form or express an
opinion thereon until the case is finally submitted to
them. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 611)
Existing law provides that when the case is finally
submitted to the jury, they may decide in court or retire
for deliberation. If they retire, they must be kept
together, in some convenient place, until at least
three-fourths of them agree upon a verdict or are
discharged by the court. Existing law provides that unless
by order of the court, the officer having them under
his/her charge must not allow any communication to be made
to them, or make any himself/herself, except to ask them if
they or three-fourths of them are agreed upon a verdict,
and he or she must not, before their verdict is rendered,
communicate to any person the state of their deliberations,
or verdict agreed upon. (Code of Civil Procedure Section
613.) Penal Code Section 1128 contains substantially
similar requirements, and further provides that the court
shall fix the time and place for deliberation and that the
CONTINUED
AB 141
Page
3
jurors shall not deliberate on the case except under such
circumstances. If the jurors are permitted by the court to
separate, the court shall properly admonish them. (Penal
Code Section 1128)
Existing law provides a list of acts or omissions in
respect to a court of justice, or proceedings therein, that
are contempts of court, including where a person is
summoned as a juror, neglects to attend or serve as such,
or improperly converses with a party to an action, to be
tried at such court, or with any other person, in relation
to the merits of such action, or receives a communication
from a party or other person in respect to it, without
immediately disclosing the same to the court. (Code of
Civil Procedure Section 1209(a)(10))
Existing law provides that any person guilty of specified
contempts of court is guilty of a misdemeanor, except as
otherwise provided. (Penal Code Section 166(a))
Existing law provides that after the jury has been sworn or
before the people's opening address, the court shall
instruct the jury generally concerning its basic functions,
duties, and conduct. The instructions shall include, among
other matters, admonitions that the jurors:
Shall not converse among themselves or with anyone else
on any subject connected with the trial.
Shall not read or listen to any accounts or discussions
of the case reported by newspapers or other news media.
Shall not visit or view the premises or place where the
offense or offenses charged were allegedly committed or
any other premises or place involved in the case.
Shall not, within 90 days of discharge, request, accept,
agree to accept, or discuss with any person receiving or
accepting any payment or benefit in consideration for
supplying any information concerning the trial.
Shall promptly report to the court any incident within
their knowledge involving an attempt by any person to
improperly influence any member of the jury. (Penal Code
CONTINUED
AB 141
Page
4
Section 1122(a))
Existing law provides that at each adjournment of the court
before the submission of the cause to the jury, whether
permitted to separate or kept in the charge of officers, be
admonished by the court that it is their duty not to
converse among themselves, or with anyone else, on any
subject connected with the trial, or to form or express nay
opinion thereon until the cause is finally submitted to
them. (Penal Code Section 1122(b))
This bill adds to existing admonitions that it is a jury's
duty not to conduct research or disseminate information.
This bill provides that, as part of the admonishment, the
court shall clearly explain that the prohibition on
research, dissemination of information, and conversation
applies to all forms of electronic and wireless
communications.
This bill clarifies that an officer's duty to not permit
any communication to be made to the jurors under his or her
charge, as well as the officer's duty not to communicate
with the jurors himself/herself, except to ask if
three-fourths of them are agreed upon the verdict, includes
any form of electronic or wireless communication.
This bill adds to the statutory list of contempts of the
court: willful disobedience by a juror of a court
admonishment related to the prohibition of any form of
communication or research about the case, including all
forms of electronic or wireless communication or research.
This bill adds to the statutory list of contempts of court
that are misdemeanors: willful disobedience by a juror of
a court admonishment related to the prohibition of any form
of communication or research about the case, including all
forms of electronic or wireless communication or research.
This bill amends a court instruction currently provided to
a jury after being sworn in and before the people's address
to provide that jurors shall not converse among themselves
CONTINUED
AB 141
Page
5
or with anyone else, conduct research, or disseminate
information on any subject connected with the trial and
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 or wireless communications.
This bill adds to the existing admonishment provided at
each adjournment of the court before the submission of the
cause to the jury to not converse among themselves or with
anyone else on any subject connected with the trial, or to
form or express any opinion about the case until the cause
is finally submitted to them, that it is their duty not to
conduct research or disseminate information. This bill
provides that as part of the admonishment, the court must
clearly explain that the prohibition on research,
dissemination of information, and conversation applies to
all forms of electronic and wireless communication.
This bill clarifies that an officer sworn to keep a jury
together for deliberation in some private and convenient
place and to not permit any person to speak or communicate
with them during the deliberation, or to do so
himself/herself, includes any form of electronic or
wireless communication.
This bill contains other technical, nonsubstantive changes.
Prior legislation . AB 2217 (Fuentes), 2009-10 Session,
passed the Senate (32-0) but was vetoed by the Governor.
In his veto message, Governor Schwarzenegger stated: "This
bill would require courts to provide specific admonishments
to jurors about communication through electronic and
wireless devices. This bill is unnecessary. Existing law
already sufficiently deals with communications among
jurors. Moreover, this type of admonishment is better
handled through court rules rather than by statute."
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/8/11)
CONTINUED
AB 141
Page
6
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO
California District Attorneys Association
California Public Defenders Association
Civil Justice Association of California
Consumer Attorneys of California
Judicial Council of California
Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
Office of the Attorney General
ARGUMENTS 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."
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."
CONTINUED
AB 141
Page
7
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 60-0, 4/14/11 (Consent)
AYES: Achadjian, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, Bill
Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford,
Brownley, Buchanan, Campos, Carter, Cedillo, Chesbro,
Cook, Davis, Dickinson, Donnelly, Eng, Fletcher, Fong,
Fuentes, Furutani, Gatto, Gordon, Hagman, Halderman,
Hall, Hayashi, Roger Hern�ndez, Hill, Huber, Hueso,
Huffman, Jeffries, Lara, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Miller,
Mitchell, Monning, Nestande, Nielsen, Norby, Pan, Perea,
V. Manuel P�rez, Portantino, Silva, Skinner, Smyth,
Solorio, Swanson, Torres, Valadao, Wieckowski, Yamada,
John A. P�rez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Alejo, Butler, Charles Calderon, Conway,
Feuer, Galgiani, Garrick, Gorell, Grove, Harkey, Jones,
Knight, Logue, Mansoor, Mendoza, Morrell, Olsen, Wagner,
Williams, Vacancy
RJG:mw 7/11/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED