BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 2101 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 20, 2016 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Lorena Gonzalez, Chair AB 2101 (Gordon) - As Amended March 31, 2016 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Policy |Judiciary |Vote:|10 - 0 | |Committee: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No SUMMARY: This bill, until January 1, 2022, authorizes a pilot program allowing participating courts to impose sanctions on impaneled jurors for knowing violations of a lawful court order. Specifically, this bill: 1)Requires the Judicial Council, by July 1, 2017, to solicit a representative sample of courts to participate in the pilot AB 2101 Page 2 project, taking into account size, geography, and other factors identified by Council. 2)Allows a participating court to impose reasonable monetary sanctions, not to exceed $1,500, on an impaneled juror for any knowing violation of a lawful court order without good cause or substantial justification supported by clear and convincing evidence. 3)Requires the Judicial Council to conduct an evaluation of the pilot project and report its findings by July 1, 2021, to the Governor and the Legislature. FISCAL EFFECT: Administrative costs for the Judicial Council to select the pilot project counties, obtain relevant data from participating courts, and report its findings should be minor. The pilot project offers potential ongoing operational savings to participating courts from addressing juror misconduct through sanctions rather than through contempt proceedings. COMMENTS: 1)Background. In California, certain acts amount to contempt. Some examples include: "disorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behavior toward the judge while holding the court, tending to interrupt the due course of a trial or other judicial proceeding;" and "when summoned as a juror in a court, neglecting to attend or serve as a juror." Due to the potentially severe consequences of being found in contempt, a contemnor is afforded significant due process rights. Contempt proceedings, therefore, take more time and judicial resources. AB 2101 Page 3 As a result, courts have been authorized the power to "impose reasonable monetary sanctions for any violation of a lawful court order without good cause or substantial justification." Current law only allows courts to sanction certain individuals-a witness, a party, or a party's attorney. When a court seeks to discipline a juror, however, the court's only option, generally, is contempt. 2)Purpose. As introduced, this bill would have allowed the court to sanction jurors for violating any lawful order without good cause, similar to the court's authority to sanction parties, attorneys, and witnesses. However, the original legislation raised significant questions, including (1) whether prospective jurors should be sanctioned under the same standard that applies to those other individuals; (2) whether sanctions would discourage jurors from serving on juries; and (3) whether there were sufficient due process safeguards for jurors to challenge a sanctions order. With these issues in mind, the bill has been narrowed to a limited and temporary pilot program to authorize juror sanctions, which is intended to balance the state's dual interests in supporting judicial economy and the due process rights for individuals who inadvertently violate court orders because they may not be familiar with the decorum expected in court. Analysis Prepared by:Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081 AB 2101 Page 4