BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2217
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 14, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2217 (Fuentes) - As Amended: March 25, 2010
Policy Committee: JudiciaryVote:9-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill:
1)Requires the courts, as part of the admonishment to jurors, to
clearly explain the prohibition on communication or research
about the case, including the use of electronic or wireless
communication, and requires the court officer in charge of the
jury to prevent these activities.
2)Stipulates that violation of the prohibitions in (1) is
contempt of court, which is a misdemeanor.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Negligible costs for the courts statewide to implement the
above.
2)Minor non-reimbursable costs to the counties for prosecution
of alleged violations, offset to some extent by fine revenues.
COMMENTS
Purpose . It is standard procedure for a court to admonish
jurors of their duty not to converse with others or conduct
independent research until a verdict is rendered. Recent use of
electronic and wireless devices by jurors, however, has caused
mistrials, overturned convictions, and court delays. In 2009 a
San Francisco Superior Court judge dismissed 600 potential
jurors after several acknowledged going online to research the
criminal case before them. Additionally, in 2001 a federal drug
trial in Florida ended in a mistrial when eight jurors admitted
AB 2217
Page 2
to conducting internet research on the case they were hearing.
In response, AB 2217 codifies an informal practice among trial
courts to authorize the courts to appropriately admonish jurors
against the use of electronic and wireless devices to
communicate, research, or disseminate information about an
ongoing case. The bill also amends the civil and criminal
contempt statutes to grant courts the power to enforce the
admonishment.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081