AB 1766, as amended, Mark Stone. Examination of prospective jurors.
In
end deletebegin insert(1)end insertbegin insert end insertbegin insertInend insert 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.
begin insertThis bill would make nonsubstantive changes to these provisions.
end insertUnder
end delete
begin insert(2)end insertbegin insert end insertbegin insertUnderend insert 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 abegin delete 2/3end deletebegin insert
2⁄3end insert
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 alsobegin delete, in civil and criminal trials,end delete require the court and counsel for each party to address a prospective juror using a number assigned by thebegin delete court orend deletebegin insert court,end insert by the prospective juror’s first name andbegin delete last initial.end deletebegin insert first initial of his or her last name, or by his or her title and last name, as determined by the court end insertbegin insertin
each criminal trial.end insert 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:
(a) To select a fair and impartial jury in civil jury trials,
4the court shall examine the prospective jurors. Upon completion
5of the court’s initial examination, counsel for each party shall have
6the right to examine, by oral and direct questioning, any of the
7prospective jurors so that counsel may intelligently exercise both
8peremptory challenges and challenges for cause. During any
9examination conducted by counsel for the parties, the court should
10permit liberal and probing examination calculated to discover bias
11or prejudice with regard to the circumstances of the particular case.
12The fact that a topic has been included in the court’s examination
13begin delete shallend deletebegin insert
shouldend insert not preclude additional nonrepetitive or nonduplicative
14questioning in the same area by counsel.
15(b) To help facilitate the jury selection process, the
court in civil
16trialsbegin delete shallend deletebegin insert shouldend insert provide to counsel for each party the complete
17names of the prospective jurors, both alphabetically and in the
18order in which they will be called.begin delete However, a prospective juror
19shall be addressed by the court and counsel for each party by a
20number assigned by the court or by the prospective juror’s first
21name and last initial.end delete
22(c) The court should allow a brief opening statement by counsel
23for each party before the commencement of the oral questioning
24phase of the voir dire process.
P3 1(d) The scope of the examination conducted by counsel shall
2be within reasonable limits prescribed by the court in the court’s
3sound discretion. In exercising its sound discretion as to the form
4and subject matter of voir dire
questions, the court should consider,
5among other criteria, any unique or complex elements, legal or
6factual, in the case and the individual responses or conduct of
7jurors that may evince attitudes inconsistent with suitability to
8serve as a fair and impartial juror in the particular case. Specific
9unreasonable or arbitrary time limits shall not be imposed in any
10case. The court shall not establish a blanket policy of a time limit
11for voir dire.
12(e) The court should permit counsel to conduct voir dire
13examination without requiring prior submission of the questions
14unless a particular counsel engages in improper questioning. For
15purposes of this section, an “improper question” is any question
16that, as its dominant purpose, attempts to precondition the
17prospective jurors to a particular result, indoctrinate the jury, or
18
question the prospective jurors concerning the pleadings or the
19applicable law. A court shall not arbitrarily or unreasonably refuse
20to submit reasonable written questionnaires, the contents of which
21are determined by the court in its sound discretion, when requested
22by counsel. If a questionnaire is used, the parties should be given
23reasonable time to evaluate the responses to the questionnaires
24before oral questioning commences.
25(f) In civil cases, the court may, upon stipulation by counsel for
26all the parties appearing in the action, permit counsel to examine
27the prospective jurors outside the court’s presence.
Section 223 of the Code of Civil Procedure is amended
29to read:
(a) In a criminal case, the court shall conduct an initial
31examination of prospective jurors. The court may submit to the
32prospective jurors additional questions requested by the parties as
33it deems proper.
34(b) The court shall provide to counsel for each party the
35complete names of the prospective jurors, both alphabetically and
36in the order in which they will be called. However,begin delete aend deletebegin insert the court, in
37each criminal trial, shall determine a uniform manner by which
38eachend insert prospective juror shall
be addressed by the court and counsel
39for eachbegin delete party by a number assigned by the court or by the
P4 1
prospective juror’s first name and last initial.end delete
2one of the following:end insert
3
(1) An identification number assigned by the court.
4(c)
end delete
5
(2) The prospective juror’s first name and the first initial of his
6or her last name.
7
(3) The prospective juror’s title and last name.
8
(c) Before examining prospective jurors, the court shall advise
9them that, in accordance with state law, the court and counsel for
10each party are prohibited, in all criminal cases, from addressing
11prospective jurors by their full names during jury selection, and
12are required to address each prospective juror by an identification
13number, by his or her first name and the first initial of his or her
14last name, or by his or her title and last name.
15begin insert(d)end insert Upon completion of the court’s initial examination, counsel
16for each party shall have the right to examine, by oral and direct
17questioning, any or all of the prospective jurors. The court may,
18in the exercise of its discretion, limit the oral and direct questioning
19of prospective
jurors by counsel. The court may specify the
20maximum amount of time that counsel for each party may question
21an individual juror, or may specify an aggregate amount of time
22for each party, which can then be allocated among the prospective
23jurors by counsel.
24(d)
end delete
25begin insert(e)end insert Voir dire of prospective jurors shall, where practicable, occur
26in the presence of the other jurors in all criminal cases, including
27death penalty cases. Examination of prospective jurors shall be
28conducted only in aid of the exercise of challenges for cause.
29(e)
end delete
30begin insert(f)end insert The court’s exercise of its discretion in the manner in which
31voir dire is conducted, including any limitation on the time which
32will be allowed for direct questioning of prospective jurors by
33counsel and any determination that a question is not in aid of the
34exercise of challenges for cause, shall not cause any conviction to
35be reversed unless the exercise of that discretion has resulted in a
36miscarriage of justice, as specified in Section 13 of Article VI of
37the California Constitution.
P5 1
(g) This section does not limit public access to juror information,
2as provided for under Section 237.
O
97