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