BILL NUMBER: AB 1766	INTRODUCED
	BILL TEXT


INTRODUCED BY   Assembly Member Mark Stone

                        FEBRUARY 3, 2016

   An act to amend Sections 222.5 and 223 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, relating to jurors.


	LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


   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 1.  Section 222.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure is amended
to read:
   222.5.   (a)    To select a fair and impartial
jury in civil jury trials, the trial judge shall examine the
prospective jurors. Upon completion of the  trial  judge's
initial examination, counsel for each party shall have the right to
examine, by oral and direct questioning, any of the prospective
jurors  in order to enable   so that 
counsel  to   may  intelligently exercise
both peremptory challenges and challenges for cause. During any
examination conducted by counsel for the parties, the trial judge
should permit liberal and probing examination calculated to discover
bias or prejudice with regard to the circumstances of the particular
case. The fact that a topic has been included in the  trial 
judge's examination  should   shall  not
preclude additional nonrepetitive or nonduplicative questioning in
the same area by counsel. 
   (b) To help facilitate the jury selection process, the trial judge
in civil trials shall provide to counsel for each party the complete
names of the prospective jurors, both alphabetically and in the
order in which they will be called. However, a prospective juror
shall be addressed by the court and counsel for each party by a
number assigned by the court or by the potential juror's first name
and last initial.  
    The 
    (c)     The  trial judge should allow
a brief opening statement by counsel for each party  prior to
  before  the commencement of the oral questioning
phase of the voir dire process. 
    The 
    (d)     The  scope of the examination
conducted by counsel shall be within reasonable limits prescribed by
the trial judge in the  trial  judge's sound discretion. In
exercising his or her sound discretion as to the form and subject
matter of voir dire questions, the trial judge should consider, among
other criteria, any unique or complex elements, legal or factual, in
the case and the individual responses or conduct of jurors 
which   that  may evince attitudes inconsistent
with suitability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in the
particular case. Specific unreasonable or arbitrary time limits shall
not be imposed in any case. The trial judge shall not establish a
blanket policy of a time limit for voir dire. 
    The 
    (e)     The  trial judge should permit
counsel to conduct voir dire examination without requiring prior
submission of the questions unless a particular counsel engages in
improper questioning. For purposes of this section, an "improper
question" is any question that, as its dominant purpose, attempts to
precondition the prospective jurors to a particular result,
indoctrinate the jury, or question the prospective jurors concerning
the pleadings or the applicable law. A court shall not arbitrarily or
unreasonably refuse to submit reasonable written questionnaires, the
contents of which are determined by the court in its sound
discretion, when requested by counsel. If a questionnaire is 
utilized,   used,  the parties should be given
reasonable time to evaluate the responses to the questionnaires
before oral questioning commences.  To help facilitate the
jury selection process, 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.  
    In 
    (f)     In  civil cases, the court
may, upon stipulation by counsel for all the parties appearing in the
action, permit counsel to examine the prospective jurors outside
 a  the trial  judge's presence.
  SEC. 2.  Section 223 of the Code of Civil Procedure is amended to
read:
   223.   (a)    In a criminal case, the court
shall conduct an initial examination of prospective jurors. The court
may submit to the prospective jurors additional questions requested
by the parties as it deems proper.  Upon  
   (b) The court shall provide to counsel for each party the complete
names of the prospective jurors, both alphabetically and in the
order in which they will be called. However, a prospective juror
shall be addressed by the court and counsel for each party by a
number assigned by the court or by the potential juror's first name
and last initial. 
    (c)     Upon  completion of the court'
s initial examination, counsel for each party shall have the right to
examine, by oral and direct questioning, any or all of the
prospective jurors. The court may, in the exercise of its discretion,
limit the oral and direct questioning of prospective jurors by
counsel. The court may specify the maximum amount of time that
counsel for each party may question an individual juror, or may
specify an aggregate amount of time for each party, which can then be
allocated among the prospective jurors by counsel.  Voir

    (d)     Voir  dire of  any
 prospective jurors shall, where practicable, occur in the
presence of the other jurors in all criminal cases, including death
penalty cases. Examination of prospective jurors shall be conducted
only in aid of the exercise of challenges for cause. 
    The 
    (e)     The  trial court's exercise of
its discretion in the manner in which voir dire is conducted,
including any limitation on the time which will be allowed for direct
questioning of prospective jurors by counsel and any determination
that a question is not in aid of the exercise of challenges for
cause, shall not cause any conviction to be reversed unless the
exercise of that discretion has resulted in a miscarriage of justice,
as specified in Section 13 of Article VI of the California
Constitution.