BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1401
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 23, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Bob Wieckowski, Chair
AB 1401 (Judiciary) - As Amended: April 16, 2013
SUBJECT : JURY ELIGIBILITY
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD ALL NON-CITIZENS BE INHERENTLY EXCUSED FROM
JURY DUTY AS UNDER EXISTING LAW, OR SHOULD THE POOL OF ELIGIBLE
PERSONS BE BROADENED TO INCLUDE LAWFULLY PRESENT IMMIGRANTS WHO
ARE DOMICILED IN CALIFORNIA AND OTHERWISE MEET ALL OTHER
CRITERIA FOR PERFORMING THIS DUTY?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
Jury service is understood to be a democratizing force and a
societal obligation. But many people see it as an inconvenience
at best, and often a burden to be avoided if possible.
Accordingly, the Legislature has frequently seen proposals to
exempt various groups from jury duty, and courts often struggle
to find sufficient numbers of jurors to meet their needs. This
bill seeks to expand the obligation of jury duty to lawful
immigrants who are currently exempt as the result of the
statutory requirement that all jurors must be U.S. citizens - a
restriction that is unique to jurors and does not apply to
lawyers, parties, witnesses or court personnel. All other
criteria for jury eligibility, including domicile and
proficiency in English would remain unchanged. Eliminating this
exclusion promises to assist the courts in their efforts to
provide qualified jurors and to more fully integrate lawful
immigrants into the fabric of our communities.
SUMMARY : Expands jury duty obligations to lawfully present
immigrants. Specifically, this bill provides that persons who
are lawfully present immigrants and are not otherwise
disqualified are eligible to be called as prospective trial
jurors.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that all persons are eligible and qualified to be
AB 1401
Page 2
prospective trial jurors, except the following:
a) Persons who are not citizens of the United States.
b) Persons who are less than 18 years of age.
c) Persons who are not domiciliaries of the State of
California, as determined pursuant to Article 2 (commencing
with Section 2020) of Chapter 1 of Division 2 of the
Elections Code.
d) Persons who are not residents of the jurisdiction they
are summoned to serve.
e) Persons who have been convicted of malfeasance in office
or a felony, and whose civil rights have not been restored.
f) Persons who are not possessed of sufficient knowledge of
the English language, provided that no person shall be
deemed incompetent solely because of the loss of sight or
hearing in any degree or other disability that impedes the
person's ability to communicate or that impairs or
interferes with the person's mobility.
g) Persons who are serving as grand or trial jurors in any
court of this state.
h) Persons who are the subject of conservatorship. (Code
of Civil Procedure section 203(a).)
2)Provides that no person shall be excluded from eligibility for
jury service in the State of California, for any reason other
than those reasons provided by this section. (Code of Civil
Procedure section 203(b).)
COMMENTS : Under current law, jury duty is required only for
U.S. citizens. All lawful immigrants, no matter their duration
of residence, are automatically excused from jury duty,
regardless of their capacity or willingness to serve. Many
immigrants, of course, reside for many years before becoming
citizens. Former Governor Schwarzenegger, for example, came to
the United States in 1968 but did not become a naturalized
citizen until 1983. (See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Schwarzenegger.) This bill
would expand the jury obligation to lawfully present immigrants,
provided that they otherwise satisfy the criteria for
eligibility, including, domicile in California, residence in the
jurisdiction, and English language proficiency.
Immigrants Currently Participate In The Judicial Process In Many
Ways; They Are Excluded Only From Jury Duty. Lawful immigrants
are entitled to be parties and witnesses in court proceedings,
AB 1401
Page 3
may represent parties as attorneys, and serve as judges or in
other positions in the courts. The only role from which they
are excluded is juror.
Of all the democratizing forces of the United States, de
Tocqueville was particularly impressed with jury duty: "The
civil jury, is a powerful force in society; its influence
extends well beyond the individual case that is being decided.
Juries, especially civil juries, instill some of the habits of
the judicial mind into every citizen, and just those habits are
the very best way of preparing people to be free. It spreads
respect for the courts' decisions and for the idea of right
throughout all classes. Juries teach men equity in practice.
Each man, when judging his neighbor, thinks that he may be
judged himself." (Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America,
270-76 (1850).)
Those thought fit to serve on juries have varied over time.
California law originally excluded all civil officers of the
state, attorneys, ministers of the gospel and priests, teachers,
practicing physicians, officers of a charitable institution
created under the laws of the state, and captains of steamers or
boats. (Stats 1851, Chap. 30, sec.2.) Of course, African
Americans, Asians and others who were not eligible to vote were
also once disqualified from jury service. (Id., sec. 1.)
Indeed, the California Supreme Court held that a person of
Chinese national origin was even unqualified to testify as a
witness at trial, fearing that "the same rule which would admit
them to testify would admit them to all the equal rights of
citizenship, and we might soon see them at the polls, in the
jury box, upon the bench and in our legislative halls." (People
v. Hall (1854) 4 Cal. 399.)
Persons over the age of 60 were originally ineligible (Stats
1851, Chap. 30, sec.2), as were women until 1911. (See Ex parte
Mana (1918) 178 Cal. 213.) Even then, change came slowly. See
People v. Lensen (1917) 34 Cal. App. 336 where six years after
revision of the state constitution in 1911 the court awarded a
new trial to a defendant convicted by a jury composed of 11 men
and 8 women, because at the time of indictment section 192 of
the Code of Civil Procedure read "a grand jury is a body of
men," the court noting that "from the earliest period in the
history of common law, juries, have been composed exclusively of
men."
AB 1401
Page 4
Expanding The Pool Of Prospective Jurors Would Assist Courts In
Meeting Their Needs For Qualified Jurors. Jury duty is a
societal obligation that many see as an inconvenience, if not a
burden, and it is well known that courts regularly struggle to
find enough prospective jurors to meet their needs. The
Legislature has regularly entertained proposals to exempt
certain groups from jury service on the basis of hardship, as
well as proposals to further penalize those who improperly seek
to avoid their obligation. This is a longstanding problem. Ten
years ago the Committee observed, "Though the Judicial Council
does not maintain an updated list of jury service delinquency
rates across the state, numerous articles have noted over the
years the very high rates of non-participation. In addition,
the compensation paid to those who fulfill their jury service
obligations remains extremely low." (Assembly Judiciary
Committee report on AB 1180 (Harman) of 2003.)
U.S. Citizenship Is Not Constitutionally Mandated For Jurors.
The limitation of jury duty to citizens is a product of statute,
not of the Constitution which does not specify or restrict the
qualifications of jurors. While the exclusion of immigrants
from jury duty is constitutionally permissible (Rubio v.
Superior Court of San Joaquin County (1979) 24 Cal. 3d 93), it
is not constitutionally mandated. Jury lists are drawn in part
from DMV records, which include many non-citizens. Prospective
jurors are not required to produce evidence of citizenship, and
immigrants do periodically serve on juries - if only because
they do not exclude themselves and are not disqualified by a
party. The participation of immigrants on a jury is permissible
and does not invalidate the proceedings. "Alienage of a juror
is cause of challenge, but is not per se sufficient to set aside
a verdict, and this whether the complaining party knew of the
fact or not. ? The disqualification of alienage is a cause of
challenge propter defectum, on account of personal objection
and, if voluntarily, or through negligence, or want of
knowledge, such objection fails to be insisted on, the
conclusion that the judgment is thereby invalidated is wholly
inadmissible. (Kohl v. Lehlback, 160 U.S. 293, 302 (1895)."
While the exclusion of immigrants from juries may be
constitutionally acceptable, many have noted that
"[d]iscrimination against any group makes participation less
universal and detracts from the jury as a democratizing
institution." (See Rubio v. Superior Court of San Joaquin
County (1979) 24 Cal. 3d 93, 106. (Torbiner, dissent, quoting
AB 1401
Page 5
Adams v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal. 3d 55, 67 (Mosk,
dissent).)
Unquestionably, just as citizenship does not automatically
correlate with knowledge of the laws or success as a juror,
non-citizens may perform jury service appropriately. Individual
qualifications would of course continue to be determined by voir
dire, and judges would continue to exercise supervision and
control of juries that include non-citizen jurors as they do
now. This bill would simply substitute individual decisions for
broad assumptions. As the U.S. Supreme Court has observed,
"Jury competence is an individual rather than a group or class
matter.... To disregard it is to open the door to class
distinctions and discriminations which are abhorrent to the
democratic ideals of trial by jury." (Thiel v. Southern Pac.
Co., (1946) 328 U.S. 217, 220.)
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None on file
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Kevin G. Baker / JUD. / (916) 319-2334