BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    





                             SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
                         Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
                            2015 - 2016  Regular  Session


          SB 428 (Hall)
          Version: February 25, 2015
          Hearing Date:  May 12, 2015
          Fiscal: No
          Urgency: No
          RD   
                    

                                        SUBJECT
                                           
                          Juries:  peace officer exemption

                                     DESCRIPTION  

          This bill would exempt from voir dire in criminal matters  
          certain peace officers, including various parole officers,  
          probation officers, deputy probation officers, board  
          coordinating parole agents, correctional officers,  
          transportation officers of a probation department, and other  
          employees, of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,  
          the State Department of State Hospitals, and the Board of Parole  
          Hearings.

                                      BACKGROUND  

          Prior to 1975, the Code of Civil Procedure exempted 17  
          occupations from jury service. These included: legislators,  
          members of Congress, military personnel, peace officers, local  
          office holders, attorneys, clergy, teachers, doctors, dentists,  
          merchant seamen, telephone and telegraph operators,  
          firefighters, railroad employees, faith healers, and cloister  
          monks and nuns. These exemptions were granted on the general  
          notion that individuals in these occupations provided a valuable  
          public service that should not be interrupted by a requirement  
          of jury service.  In 1975, AB 681 (Siegler, Ch. 593, Stats.  
          1975) repealed those categorical exemptions and replaced them  
          with a generic provision allowing any person to be excused from  
          jury duty for undue hardship on themselves or the public.  (See  
          current Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 204(b).) 









          SB 428 (Hall)
          Page 2 of ? 

          Subsequently, however, exemptions began to be reinstated for a  
          number of categories of peace officers.  First, a full exemption  
          from jury duty was re-established for "line" peace  
          officers-police, sheriffs, CHP-by passage of SB 549 (Wilson, Ch.  
          748, Stats. 1977), the rationale being that such individuals  
          were rarely chosen to serve and a vital public resource was  
          wasted in attendance through the process of jury selection.   
          This exemption was later extended to judges.  Then in 1988, a  
          comprehensive revision of the law relating to juries was enacted  
          by AB 2617 (Harris, Ch. 1245, Stats. 1988) wherein the exemption  
          for judges was removed, and the peace officer exemption was  
          limited to criminal matters only.  Again, in 1992, the peace  
          officer exemption was expanded to include civil cases and, two  
          years later, an exemption from voir dire in criminal cases was  
          extended to California State University and University of  
          California police. Finally, in 2001, an exemption was provided  
          for Bay Area Rapid Transit District police from jury duty in  
          civil and criminal matters.  (See Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 219 for  
          current peace officer exemptions.)  

          Despite the inclusion of these new exemptions from jury service,  
          throughout the 1990s and over the last decade, attempts to add  
          new exemptions for other peace officers or other categories of  
          individuals, including judges, have been largely unsuccessful.   
          (See Prior Legislation.)   AB 1708 (Alejo, 2014), substantially  
          similar to this bill, would have provided for an exemption from  
          voir dire in criminal matters for these same peace officers and  
          was opposed by judges, the courts, and district attorneys, among  
          others.  That bill died in the Assembly Public Safety Committee  
          without a hearing.  Similarly, SB 1133 (Anderson, 2014) would  
          have provided an exemption for certain Department of Fish and  
          Game peace officers from both civil and criminal voir dire, and  
          died in this Committee without a hearing. 

          This bill now seeks to provide an exemption for numerous peace  
          officers from jury duty in criminal matters. 

                                CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
           
           Existing law  provides that the Legislature recognizes that trial  
          by jury is a cherished constitutional right, and that jury  
          service is an obligation of citizenship. It is the policy of the  
          State of California that all persons selected for jury service  
          shall be selected at random from the population of the area  
          served by the court; that all qualified persons have an equal  







          SB 428 (Hall)
          Page 3 of ? 

          opportunity, in accordance with this chapter, to be considered  
          for jury service in the state and an obligation to serve as  
          jurors when summoned for that purpose; and that it is the  
          responsibility of jury commissioners to manage all jury systems  
          in an efficient, equitable, and cost-effective manner.  (Code  
          Civ. Proc. Sec. 191.) 

           Existing law  provides that all persons are eligible to be  
          prospective trial jurors, except the following: 
           persons who are not citizens of the United States; 
           persons who are less than 18 years of age; 
           persons who are not domiciliaries of the State of California,  
            as specified; 
           persons who are not residents of the jurisdiction wherein they  
            are summoned to serve;
           persons who have been convicted of malfeasance in office or a  
            felony, and whose civil rights have not been restored; 
           persons who are not possessed of sufficient knowledge of the  
            English language, provided that no person shall be deemed  
            incompetent solely because of the loss of sight or hearing in  
            any degree or other disability which impedes the person's  
            ability to communicate or which impairs or interferes with the  
            person's mobility; 
           persons who are serving as grand or trial jurors in any court  
            of this state; or
           persons who are the subject of conservatorship.  (Code Civ.  
            Proc. Sec. 203(a).) 

           Existing law  prohibits any person from being excluded from  
          eligibility for jury service in the State of California, for any  
          reason other than those reasons provided above. (Code Civ. Proc.  
          Sec. 203(b).)  

           Existing law  prohibits the exemption of any eligible person from  
          service as a trial juror by reason of occupation, economic  
          status, or race, national origin, ethnic group identification,  
          religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, color, genetic  
          information, or disability, or for any other reason.  Existing  
          law provides that an eligible person may be excused from jury  
          service only for undue hardship, upon themselves or upon the  
          public, as defined by the Judicial Council.  (Code Civ. Proc.  
          Sec. 204.)   
           
           Existing rule of court  provides that an excuse for undue  
          hardship may be granted for various reasons, including that the  







          SB 428 (Hall)
          Page 4 of ? 

          prospective juror's services are immediately needed for the  
          protection of the public health and safety, and that it is not  
          feasible to make alternative arrangements to relieve the person  
          of those responsibilities during the period of service as a  
          juror without substantially reducing essential public services.   
           (Cal. Rule Court 2.1008(d)(6).)

           Existing law  prohibits certain peace officers from being  
          selected for voir dire in both civil and criminal matters,  
          including: sheriffs, police officers, municipal court marshals,  
          constables, inspectors and investigators of district attorneys,  
          California Highway Patrol officers, and San Francisco Bay Area  
          Rapid Transit District Police Department police, as specified.    
          (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 219(b)(1).) 

           Existing law  prohibits specified members of the University of  
          California Police Department as well as members of the  
          California State University Police Departments from being  
          selected for voir dire in criminal matters only.  (Code Civ.  
          Proc. Sec. 219(b)(2).) 

           Existing law  requires the Judicial Council to adopt a rule of  
          court, on or before January 1, 2005, requiring the trial courts  
          to establish procedures for jury service that gives peace  
          officers, as defined by Section 830.5 of the Penal Code,  
          scheduling accommodations when necessary.  (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.  
          219.5.)

           Existing law  provides that a challenge is an objection made to  
          the trial jurors that may be taken by any party to the action,  
          and is of the following classes and types:
           a challenge to the trial jury panel for cause, as specified;  
            or 
           a challenge to a prospective juror by either of the following:
             o    A challenge for cause, for (1) general  
               disqualification-that the juror is disqualified from  
               serving in the action on trial, (2) implied bias-as, when  
               the existence of the facts as ascertained, in judgment of  
               law disqualifies the juror, or (3) actual bias-the  
               existence of a state of mind on the part of the juror in  
               reference to the case, or to any of the parties, which will  
               prevent the juror from acting with entire impartiality, and  
               without prejudice to the substantial rights of any party. 
             o    A peremptory challenge to a prospective juror.  (Code  
               Civ. Proc. Sec. 225.)  







          SB 428 (Hall)
          Page 5 of ? 


           Existing law  specifies that a party may not use a peremptory  
          challenge to remove a prospective juror on the basis of an  
          assumption that the prospective juror is biased merely because  
          of his or her race, color, religion, sex, national origin,  
          sexual orientation, or similar grounds.  (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.  
          231.5.) 

           Existing case law  provides that a defendant's right to trial by  
          a jury drawn from a representative cross section of the  
          community, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the federal  
          Constitution and article I, section 16, of the California  
          Constitution, is violated when a "cognizable group" within that  
          community is excluded from jury venire.  In order for a group to  
          be considered cognizable, two requirements must be met:  (1) the  
          group's members must share a common perspective arising from  
          their life experience in the group; and (2) it must be shown by  
          the party seeking to prove a violation of the representative  
          cross section rule that "no other members of the community are  
          capable of adequately representing the perspective of the group  
          assertedly excluded."   (Rubio v. Superior Court, (1979) 24 Cal  
          3d 93, 97; see also People v. Garcia (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1269,  
          1274.)

           This bill  would exempt from voir dire in criminal matters  
          certain peace officers, including various parole officers,  
          probation officers, deputy probation officers, board  
          coordinating parole agents, correctional officers,  
          transportation officers of a probation department, and other  
          employees of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,  
          the State Department of State Hospitals, and the Board of Parole  
          Hearings.  
          
                                        COMMENT
           
          1.    Stated need for the bill  

          According to the author: 

            Long standing current law exempts sheriffs/deputy sheriffs,  
            police officers, UC and BART police, municipal court marshals,  
            and various other peace officers from jury duty on civil and  
            criminal trials. Probation, parole and correctional officers,  
            while similarly holding peace officer status, are not exempt  
            from jury duty.







          SB 428 (Hall)
          Page 6 of ? 


            This bill would extend the jury duty exemption, in  criminal  
            trials only  , to parole officers, probation officers,  
            correctional officers, transportation officers of a probation  
            department, and other employees of [the California Department  
            of Corrections and Rehabilitation], State Department of State  
            Hospitals, and the Board of Parole Hearings. [Emphasis in  
            original.] 

            [ . . . ] Probation Departments have historically served as an  
            arm of the court and are responsible for providing  
            pre-sentence reports to the court. As part of this process,  
            probation meets with the defendant to discuss a number of  
            issues related to their case.  In addition, probation is  
            responsible for the pre-sentence investigation/report and  
            subsequently the potential supervision of the defendant if  
            sentenced to probation jurisdiction.  Given this on-going  
            interaction, there is an inherent potential for a conflict of  
            interest for probation departments. 

            Additionally, when probation officers go through the jury  
            selection process, they are required to disclose personal  
            information regarding their job, spouse, and other privileged  
            information. This places peace officers in a situation where  
            they are sharing personal information in front of the  
            defendant who could possibly be under their direct  
            supervision, or that of their departments, at a later time.  
            This creates a significant safety risk for these officers. 

            Lastly, probation, parole and correctional officers are  
            responsible for critical public safety services including  
            supervising offenders on Post Release Community Supervision  
            (PRCS), Mandatory Supervision (MS), probation, and parole as  
            well as those serving time in state and local detention  
            facilities. Pulling these officers away from their duties can  
            significantly impact an agency's ability to effectively manage  
            and administer programs and supervision. For example, county  
            juvenile halls have minimum staffing ratios. In cases where an  
            institutional staff is called for jury service, it can be  
            extremely difficult to ensure those minimum staffing ratios  
            are maintained and very expensive in cases where overtime is  
            needed to ensure coverage. 
                                 
            While peace officers in many cases are not selected to serve  
            on juries -particularly in criminal cases-probation and parole  







          SB 428 (Hall)
          Page 7 of ? 

            officers throughout the state continue to be called to go  
            through the selection process. The time spent reporting for  
            jury duty is critical time spent away from their public safety  
            duties, caseloads, and institutions.

          A co-sponsor of this bill, the State Coalition of Probation  
          Organizations, adds that "Probation Officers are charged with  
          preparing pre-sentence reports for adult defendants and  
          dispositional reports for minors, and monitoring and supervising  
          individuals while released on community supervision or  
          probation.  These activities often bring probation officers into  
          contact with very dangerous individuals.  Recognizing the  
          inherent danger that police officers and deputy sheriffs are  
          exposed to through their interactions with potential criminals,  
          several decades ago, the legislature exempted these peace  
          officers from service on civil and criminal jury trials.   
          Probation peace officers were not included in the exemption.  SB  
          428 seeks to extend this exemption to probation peace officers.   
          Given the enhanced role probation peace officers play today in  
          criminal proceedings, and the more dangerous population they  
          work with, extending the exemption to jury duty for CRIMINAL  
          TRIALS ONLY is a matter of probation peace officer safety."  

          Co-sponsor Chief Probation Officers of California also writes  
          that "[w]hile peace officers in many cases are not selected to  
          serve on juries-particularly in criminal cases-probation and  
          parole officers throughout the state continue to be called to go  
          through the selection process.  The time spent reporting for  
          jury duty is critical time spent away from their public safety  
          duties, caseloads, and institutions." 

          2.   Existing law addresses most concerns listed in support of  
          exemption  

          This bill seeks to add new categorical exemptions to jury  
          service in criminal matters for specified peace officers.  

          Notably, in place of categorical exemptions, existing law  
          provides remedies for many of the individuals who have sought  
          exemptions over the years.  For example, California law provides  
          that an eligible person may be excused from jury service for  
          undue hardship, upon themselves or upon the public, as defined  
          by the Judicial Council.  (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 204.)  To this  
          end, the California Rules of Court provide that an excuse for  
          undue hardship may be granted for various reasons, including  







          SB 428 (Hall)
          Page 8 of ? 

          that the prospective juror's services are immediately needed for  
          the protection of the public health and safety, and it is not  
          feasible to make alternative arrangements to relieve the person  
          of those responsibilities during the period of service as a  
          juror without substantially reducing essential public services.   
          (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.1008(d)(6).)  Additionally,  
          existing law requires the Judicial Council to adopt a rule of  
          court requiring the trial courts to establish procedures for  
          jury service that gives peace officers, as defined by Section  
          830.5 of the Penal Code (those peace officers that would be  
          exempt under this bill), scheduling accommodations when  
          necessary.  (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 219.5; see Cal. Rules of  
          Court, rule 2.1004(b).)

          3.   Public policy against categorical exemptions from jury  
          service
           
          Commonly discussed as a citizen's civic duty, jury service  
          fundamentally functions to "preserve[ ] the democratic element  
          of the law, as it guards the rights of the parties and ensures  
          continued acceptance of the laws by all of the people."  (Green  
          v. United States (1958) 356 U.S. 165, 215 (Black, J.,  
          dissenting).  It "affords ordinary citizens a valuable  
          opportunity to participate in a process of government, an  
          experience fostering, one hopes, a respect for law."  (Duncan v.  
          Louisiana (1968) 391 U.S. 145, 187 (Harlan, J., dissenting).)   
          As noted by the U.S. Supreme Court, "[i]ndeed, with the  
          exception of voting, for most citizens the honor and privilege  
          of jury duty is their most significant opportunity to  
          participate in the democratic process."  (Powers v. Ohio (1991)  
          499 U.S. 400, 406.)

          Under California law, every citizen over 18 years of age is  
          eligible and qualified to be a prospective juror unless they  
          fail to meet certain minimal requirements.  For example, they  
          must be a resident of the jurisdiction they are summoned to  
          serve, be possessed of sufficient knowledge of the English  
          language, and not be subject to conservatorship. Aside from  
          these threshold requirements that must be met for a person to be  
          eligible to serve on a jury, California law prohibits any person  
          from being excluded from eligibility for jury service.  While  
          otherwise eligible persons could be excused by the courts on a  
          case-by-case basis for hardship, or be peremptorily challenged  
          or be challenged for cause (such as for express or implied  
          bias), California law prohibits the exemption of any eligible  







          SB 428 (Hall)
          Page 9 of ? 

          person from service by reason of occupation, economic status, or  
          race, national origin, ethnic group identification, religion,  
          age, sex, sexual orientation, color, genetic information, or  
          disability, or for any other reason.  

          The proponents of this bill argue that the exemption of these  
          peace officers, including probation officers, is appropriate,  
          because "given the populations these officers are required to  
          interact with on a daily basis, the requirement to serve on  
          juries, particularly for criminal trials, potentially  
          jeopardizes the safety of these officers."  

          Indeed, under Section 219 of the Code of Civil Procedure,  
          specified peace officers (including California Highway Patrol  
          officers and San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District  
          Police officers) are prohibited from being selected for voir  
          dire in both civil and criminal matters, while others (such as  
          specified University of California officers) are prohibited from  
          being selected for voir dire in criminal matters only.   
          Nonetheless, under current law, many classes of peace officers  
          are not exempt from voir dire in civil or criminal cases.  Those  
          other categories include:  L.A. County safety police officers,  
          California Community College police officers, school district  
          police, municipal utility district security and county water  
          district security officers, local park rangers, Department of  
          Justice agents and investigators, Department of Corrections and  
          Rehabilitation investigators, and peace officers employed by  
          state departments including the Departments of Parks and  
          Recreation and Forestry and Fire Protection, and Consumer  
          Affairs.  And while the proponents argue that it is "unthinkable  
          today that a local police officer, deputy sheriff, public  
          defender or district attorney would serve on a jury during a  
          criminal trial," staff notes that public defenders and district  
          attorneys are not categorically exempted from voir dire.  Those  
          same individuals could be asked to reveal sensitive information  
          about their job, spouse, and other private information when  
          participating in voir dire.  Moreover, insofar as the proponents  
          assert that the act of having to respond to a voir dire summons  
          takes these peace officers away from their public safety duties,  
          caseloads and institutions, California law already provides  
          remedies that address such concerns. (See Comment 2 above).  

          Given the inherent authority of the court and ability to excuse  
          prospective jurors for various reasons and that hardship  
          exemptions are sufficient to address the case-by-case needs of  







          SB 428 (Hall)
          Page 10 of ? 

          officers, exempting additional officers would appear to further  
          limit the available jury pool potentially both to the detriment  
          of defendants in matters who have a constitutional right to  
          having a jury drawn from a representative cross section of the  
          community, and to the courts that are charged with drawing those  
          pools.  Staff further notes that public policy in this state  
          supports giving every eligible person equal opportunity to  
          discharge their civic duty.  To this end, even if the majority  
          of the peace officers that this bill proposes to exclude from  
          jury service are ordinarily excused from service during voir  
          dire (either for hardship or based on a peremptory challenge or  
          challenge for cause), this bill would outright prohibit persons  
          who may desire to fulfill their civic duty from participating in  
          this process.  

          4.    Opposition to the bill from Judicial Council and the  
          California Judges Association  

          In opposition to this bill, the Judicial Council of California  
          writes: 

            Statutorily exempting specific categories of persons from jury  
            duty reduces the number of available jurors, makes it more  
            difficult to select representative juries, and unfairly  
            increases the burden of jury service on other segments of the  
            population.  The courts have a constitutional obligation to  
            ensure that jury pools are representative of the community and  
                                                           that there are enough prospective jurors in the courthouse  
            each day to avoid having to dismiss last-day criminal trials  
            for lack of jurors.  

            Further[,] the council believes that categorical exemptions  
            are unnecessary because existing law and rules of court  
            authorize courts to grant a hardship excuse in appropriate  
            circumstances and to make scheduling accommodations without  
            requiring a court appearance.  Lack of transportation,  
            personal obligation to provide care for another, and that the  
            prospective juror's services "are immediately needed for the  
            protection of the public health and safety" are grounds  
            constituting undue hardship under California Rules of Court,  
            rule 2.1008.  While jury services requires sacrifice on the  
            parts of citizens, exempting certain classes of individuals on  
            the basis of the burden it might put on them unfairly  
            increases the burden on the others.  (Emphasis in original.)








          SB 428 (Hall)
          Page 11 of ? 

          Also in opposition to the bill, the California Judges  
          Association writes that "[m]any courts struggle already with the  
          challenges of having enough jurors available for prospective  
          jury service, and the expansion of further exemptions will  
          further complicate this.  This is particularly true in  
          less-populated counties, where we understand residents may be  
          called as often as twice each year as prospective jurors.
          Existing law and rules of court provide adequate opportunity for  
          scheduling accommodation or excuse where allowable.  Creating  
          further categorical exemptions harms the diversity of the jury  
          pool and increases the burden on the remaining prospective-juror  
          community."


           Support  :  Association of Probation Supervisors; California  
          Correctional Peace Officers Association; California Probation,  
          Parole and Correctional Association; Fraternal Order of Police,  
          N. California Probation Lodge 19; Los Angeles County Probation  
          Officers Union, AFSCME, Local 685; Madera Probation Peace  
          Officer Association; Monterey County Probation Association;  
          Orange County Employees Association; Riverside Sheriffs  
          Association; Sacramento County Probation Association; San  
          Francisco Deputy Probation Officers' Association; Teamsters  
          Local Union No. 856; Ventura County Professional Peace Officers'  
          Association; San Joaquin County Probation Officers Association;  
          one individual 

           Opposition  :  California Judges Association; Judicial Council

                                        HISTORY
           
           Source  :  Chief Probation Officers of California (CPOC); State  
          Coalition of Probation Organizations (SCOPO)

           Related Pending Legislation  :  None Known 

           Prior Legislation  :

          SB 1133 (Anderson, 2014) would have exempted certain Department  
          of Fish and Game employees from jury duty in criminal and civil  
          matters.  That bill died in this Committee. 

          AB 1708 (Alejo, 2014), similar to this bill, would have excluded  
          additional peace officers, including certain parole officers,  
          probation officers, deputy probation officers, board  







          SB 428 (Hall)
          Page 12 of ? 

          coordinating parole agents, correctional officers,  
          transportation officers of a probation department, and other  
          employees of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,  
          the State Department of State Hospitals, and the Board of Parole  
          Hearings, from voir dire in criminal matters. This bill died in  
          the Assembly Public Safety Committee. 

          AB 1769 (Galgiani, 2007) would have exempted from voir dire in  
          criminal matters: members of a community college police  
          department, as specified, persons employed as a member of a  
          police department of a school district, as specified, whose  
          primary duty is law enforcement, and peace officers employed by  
          a K-12 school district or a community college district who  
          completed certain training.  This bill was vetoed. 

          AB 1993 (Nakanishi, 2005) would have provided, until January 1,  
          2010, an eligible person who holds an active license as a  
          registered nurse and works at least 20 hours per week in direct  
          patient care services may be excused from jury service.  That  
          bill died in the Assembly Judiciary Committee. 

          AB 2271 (Parra, 2004) would have exempted correctional officers  
          employed by the Department of Corrections from voir dire in  
          civil and criminal matters.  This bill died in the Senate Public  
          Safety Committee. 

          AB 270 (Bates, 2003) would have exempted harbor and port police,  
          as specified, from voir dire in civil and criminal matters.   
          That bill failed passage in the Senate Public Safety Committee.

          AB 1970 (Matthews, 2002) would have exempted parole officers,  
          probation officers, and correctional officers who are peace  
          officers, as specified, from jury panels sent to courtrooms for  
          voir dire in civil and criminal matters.  That bill died in the  
          Senate Public Safety Committee. 

          SB 303 (Torlakson, Ch. 55, Stats. 2001) excluded specified Bay  
          Area Rapid Transit District officers from voir dire in civil and  
          criminal matters. 

          AB 2418 (Migden, Ch. 43, Stats. 2000) added sexual orientation  
          to the list of reasons upon which existing law prohibits a  
          person from being exempted from service as a trial juror.  That  
          bill also added a new provision to the Code of Civil Procedure,  
          Section 231.5, that prohibits a party from using a peremptory  







          SB 428 (Hall)
          Page 13 of ? 

          challenge to remove a prospective juror on the basis of an  
          assumption that the prospective juror is biased merely because  
          he or she is a member of an identifiable group distinguished on  
          racial, religious, ethnic, sexual orientation, gender, or  
          similar grounds. 

          SB 801 (Poochigian, 2000) would have created an exemption from  
          jury duty for judges, excluding temporary judges.  That bill  
          failed passage in this Committee. 

          AB 316 (Morrissey, 1997) would have exempted local agency park  
          rangers and Los Angeles County safety police from civil and  
          criminal jury duty.  It also would have exempted state  
          university police and Department of Corrections Law Enforcement  
          Liaison officers from civil jury duty, in addition to their  
          exemption from criminal jury duty.  This bill failed passage in  
          this Committee.  

          SB 2066 (Rogers, Ch. 742, Stats. 1994) added an exemption for  
          California State University and University of California police  
          from voir dire in civil and criminal matters.  

          AB 2577 (Wright, Ch. 324, Stats. 1992) expanded the exemption  
          from voir dire in criminal matters for certain peace officers  
          (sheriffs, police officers, municipal court marshals,  
          constables, inspectors and investigators of district attorneys,  
          and California Highway Patrol officers) to civil matters.  
          AB 2617 (Harris, Ch. 1245, Stats. 1998) enacted an extensive  
          revision of the law with respect to juries, consolidating  
          various provisions relative to juries in civil and criminal  
          causes, and revising provisions relative to the qualifications  
          of trial jurors, excusal from jury service for hardship, the  
          required appointment of a jury commissioner in each county, the  
          selection, compensation, and duties of jury commissioners, the  
          preparation of juror questionnaires, expanded facilities for  
          jurors, the summons of prospective jurors, the selection of jury  
          panels, voir dire, challenges to jurors, and the compensation of  
          jurors, alternate jurors, and juries of inquest.  The bill also  
          included an exemption for certain peace officers from voir dire  
          in criminal matters (namely, sheriffs, police officers,  
          municipal court marshals, constables, inspectors and  
          investigators of district attorneys, and California Highway  
          Patrol officers). 

                                   **************







          SB 428 (Hall)
          Page 14 of ?