BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1766
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
1766 (Mark Stone)
As Amended March 30, 2016
2/3 vote
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Judiciary |9-0 |Mark Stone, Alejo, | |
| | |Chau, Chiu, | |
| | |Gallagher, Cristina | |
| | |Garcia, Holden, | |
| | |Maienschein, Ting | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Provides how the court or parties' counsel may address
prospective jurors during voir dire in a criminal matter.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the court to determine the manner in how the court
and counsel shall uniformly address each panel of prospective
jurors. The court and counsel shall address a prospective
juror by either an identification number assigned by the
court, the first name and the first initial of the juror's
AB 1766
Page 2
last name, or by a title and the juror's last name.
2)Requires the court, in criminal cases, to 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, similar to the information usually provided to parties
in civil cases.
3)Requires the court to advise prospective jurors that, in
accordance with state law, the court and counsel for each
party are prohibited, in all criminal cases, from addressing
prospective jurors by their full names during the jury
selection process, and are required to address them by either:
an identification number; their first name and the first
initial of their last name; or their last name.
4)Provides that the bill, as it relates to voir dire in criminal
trials, shall not be construed as affecting existing law that
allows the public access to juror information.
5)Makes other technical and conforming changes.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Allows a court, in a criminal case, to conduct an initial
examination of prospective jurors.
a) Provides that after a 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.
b) Provides that voir dire of any prospective jurors shall,
where practicable, occur in the presence of other jurors in
all criminal cases, including death penalty cases.
AB 1766
Page 3
FISCAL EFFECT: None
COMMENTS: Juries are selected by a court process (that is open
to the public) known as voir dire. During voir dire,
prospective jurors are seated in the jury box and are asked - in
front of other prospective jurors and the public - a series of
questions to determine their competence and fitness to serve as
jurors. Usually, these questions help to ferret out bias; but
sometimes, these questions can touch on subjects that are very
personal, such as whether the juror lives alone, whether the
juror has children, and where the juror lives.
To address these concerns, this bill simply provides that during
voir dire in a criminal manner, a court or counsel must address
a prospective juror by a jury number, the juror's first name and
last initial, or the juror's title and last name.
Additionally, the author has taken a number of amendments to
address concerns raised by the California Attorneys for Criminal
Justice by requiring the court to advise prospective jurors that
California law prohibits the court and counsel in criminal cases
from addressing prospective jurors by their full names during
the jury selection process.
To address concerns raised by the Judicial Council and others,
the bill is limited to criminal cases only. However, this bill
does not prevent a civil court from addressing jurors in a
manner it deems appropriate and that is in accordance with law.
This bill maintains the court's discretion in determining how
the court and counsel shall address each panel of prospective
jurors. This bill also ensures that within a particular panel,
AB 1766
Page 4
the court address each prospective juror uniformly. Given that
a court's decision is still subject to abuse of discretion
review, this does not change the existing practice which allows
the attorneys to object a court's determination.
This bill does not prevent the court or counsel from having
access to the prospective juror's full name. This bill requires
a court in a criminal case to provide to each party's counsel a
complete list of the names of prospective jurors, both in
alphabetical and examination calling order - similar to lists
usually provided to a party's counsel in civil cases. This fair
approach allows attorneys, like prosecutors and defense
attorneys, to continue to assess jurors for other conflicts
without resorting to open questioning during voir dire.
The California Supreme Court has recently considered whether
trial courts have the discretion to address jurors by a number
throughout a jury trial, rather than their full names. In
People v. Thomas (2012) 53 Cal. 4th 771, the trial court ordered
that prospective jurors and trial jurors be referred to by
number only. There, the defendant contended, among other
things, that the use of the jury numbers violated his rights to
be presumed innocent and to a fair and public trial. (Id.)
The California Supreme Court held that the trial court did not
err, and that, "the procedure did not violate the defendant's
right to a public trial because the trial was open and the
jurors' faces were visible to anyone present." (Id.) In
addition, the Court held that, "any risk that the jury would
speculate that the use of numbers related to the defendant's
dangerousness was diminished because the trial court indicated
it would admonish the jury that the procedure was required in
all criminal cases and had nothing to do with the defendant."
(Id.)
AB 1766
Page 5
Given the public nature of criminal trials, and the fact that
this bill only applies to voir dire, allows courts and counsel
to address prospective jurors by their first or last names,
requires the court to provide counsel with access to the full
names of prospective jurors, and requires the court to advise
jurors about this new criminal procedure, this bill would
certainly survive the test under People v. Thomas, supra, at
771.
Analysis Prepared by:
Eric Dang / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0002673