AB 1766, as introduced, Mark Stone. Examination of prospective jurors.
In civil trials, existing law requires a trial judge to examine prospective jurors, and, upon completion of the judge’s examination, grants counsel for each party the right to examine, by oral and direct questioning, any prospective juror in order to enable counsel to intelligently exercise peremptory challenges and challenges for cause. Existing law provides that the judge in civil trials should provide the parties with both the alphabetical list and the list of prospective jurors in the order in which they will be called.
Under existing law, which was enacted by initiative measure, in a criminal case, the court is required to conduct the examination of prospective jurors, except that the court may permit the parties, upon a showing of good cause, to conduct a further inquiry. The initiative measure provides that it may be amended by a measure enacted by a 2/3 vote of each house.
This bill would, in criminal trials, require the court to provide the complete names of prospective jurors to counsel for each party, as specified. The bill would also, in civil and criminal trials, require the court and counsel for each party to address a prospective juror using a number assigned by the court or by the potential juror’s first name and last initial. The bill would also make nonsubstantive changes to these provisions.
Vote: 2⁄3. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
Section 222.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure is
2amended to read:
begin insert(a)end insertbegin insert end insert To select a fair and impartial jury in civil jury trials,
4the trial judge shall examine the prospective jurors. Upon
5completion of thebegin insert trialend insert judge’s initial examination, counsel for
6each party shall have the right to examine, by oral and direct
7questioning, any of the prospective jurorsbegin delete in order to enableend deletebegin insert so
8thatend insert
counselbegin delete toend deletebegin insert
mayend insert intelligently exercise both peremptory
9challenges and challenges for cause. During any examination
10conducted by counsel for the parties, the trial judge should permit
11liberal and probing examination calculated to discover bias or
12prejudice with regard to the circumstances of the particular case.
13The fact that a topic has been included in thebegin insert trialend insert judge’s
14examinationbegin delete shouldend deletebegin insert shallend insert not preclude additional nonrepetitive or
15nonduplicative questioning in the same area by counsel.
16(b) To help facilitate the jury selection process,
the trial judge
17in civil trials shall provide to counsel for each party the complete
18names of the prospective jurors, both alphabetically and in the
19order in which they will be called. However, a prospective juror
20shall be addressed by the court and counsel for each party by a
21number assigned by the court or by the potential juror’s first name
22and last initial.
23 The
end delete
24begin insert(c)end insertbegin insert end insertbegin insertTheend insert trial judge should allow a brief opening statement by
25counsel for each partybegin delete prior toend deletebegin insert
beforeend insert the commencement of the
26oral questioning phase of the voir dire process.
27 The
end delete
28begin insert(d)end insertbegin insert end insertbegin insertTheend insert scope of the examination conducted by counsel shall
29be within reasonable limits prescribed by the trial judge in thebegin insert trialend insert
30 judge’s sound discretion. In exercising his or her sound discretion
31as to the form and subject matter of voir dire questions, the trial
32
judge should consider, among other criteria, any unique or complex
33elements, legal or factual, in the case and the individual responses
P3 1or conduct of jurorsbegin delete whichend deletebegin insert thatend insert may evince attitudes inconsistent
2with suitability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in the particular
3case. Specific unreasonable or arbitrary time limits shall not be
4imposed in any case. The trial judge shall not establish a blanket
5policy of a time limit for voir dire.
6 The
end delete
7begin insert(e)end insertbegin insert end insertbegin insertTheend insert
trial judge should permit counsel to conduct voir dire
8examination without requiring prior submission of the questions
9unless a particular counsel engages in improper questioning. For
10purposes of this section, an “improper question” is any question
11that, as its dominant purpose, attempts to precondition the
12prospective jurors to a particular result, indoctrinate the jury, or
13question the prospective jurors concerning the pleadings or the
14applicable law. A court shall not arbitrarily or unreasonably refuse
15to submit reasonable written questionnaires, the contents of which
16are determined by the court in its sound discretion, when requested
17by counsel. If a questionnaire isbegin delete utilized,end deletebegin insert used,end insert the parties should
18be given reasonable time to evaluate the responses to the
19questionnaires before oral questioning
commences.begin delete To help
20facilitate the jury selection process, the judge in civil trials should
21provide the parties with both the alphabetical list and the list of
22prospective jurors in the order in which they will be called.end delete
23 In
end delete
24begin insert(f)end insertbegin insert end insertbegin insertInend insert civil cases, the court may, upon stipulation by counsel for
25all the parties appearing in the action, permit counsel to examine
26the prospective jurors outsidebegin delete aend deletebegin insert
the trialend insert judge’s presence.
Section 223 of the Code of Civil Procedure is amended
28to read:
begin insert(a)end insertbegin insert end insert In a criminal case, the court shall conduct an initial
30examination of prospective jurors. The court may submit to the
31prospective jurors additional questions requested by the parties as
32it deems proper.begin delete Uponend delete
33(b) The court shall provide to counsel for each party the
34complete
names of the prospective jurors, both alphabetically and
35in the order in which they will be called. However, a prospective
36juror shall be addressed by the court and counsel for each party
37by a number assigned by the court or by the potential juror’s first
38name and last initial.
39begin insert(c)end insertbegin insert end insertbegin insertUponend insert completion of the court’s initial examination, counsel
40for each party shall have the right to examine, by oral and direct
P4 1questioning, any or all of the prospective jurors. The court may,
2in the exercise of its discretion, limit the oral and direct questioning
3of prospective jurors by counsel. The court may specify the
4maximum amount of time that counsel for each party may question
5an individual juror, or may specify an
aggregate amount of time
6for each party, which can then be allocated among the prospective
7jurors by counsel.begin delete Voirend delete
8begin insert(d)end insertbegin insert end insertbegin insertVoirend insert dire ofbegin delete anyend delete prospective jurors shall, where practicable,
9occur in the presence of the other jurors in all criminal cases,
10including death penalty cases. Examination of prospective jurors
11shall be conducted only in aid of the exercise of challenges for
12cause.
13 The
end delete
14begin insert(e)end insertbegin insert end insertbegin insertTheend insert trial court’s exercise of its discretion in the manner in
15which voir dire is conducted, including any limitation on the time
16which will be allowed for direct questioning of prospective jurors
17by counsel and any determination that a question is not in aid of
18the exercise of challenges for cause, shall not cause any conviction
19to be reversed unless the exercise of that discretion has resulted
20in a miscarriage of justice, as specified in Section 13 of Article VI
21of the California Constitution.
O
99