BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 2217
                                                                  Page  1


          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
          AB 2217 (Fuentes)
          As Amended March 25, 2010
          Majority vote 

           JUDICIARY           9-0         APPROPRIATIONS      15-0        
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Feuer, Harkey, Brownley,  |Ayes:|Fuentes, Conway, Ammiano, |
          |     |Evans, Hagman, Jones,     |     |Bradford, Charles         |
          |     |Huffman, Monning, Nava    |     |Calderon, Coto,           |
          |     |                          |     |De Leon, Hall, Harkey,    |
          |     |                          |     |Miller, Nielsen, Skinner, |
          |     |                          |     |Solorio, Torlakson,       |
          |     |                          |     |Torrico                   |
          |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           SUMMARY  :  Seeks to statutorily authorize an informal practice by  
          many courts to appropriately admonish jurors against the use of  
          electronic and wireless devices to communicate, research, or  
          disseminate information about an ongoing case.  Specifically,  
           this bill  :  

          1)Requires the court, when admonishing the jury against  
            conversation pursuant to these provisions, to clearly explain,  
            as part of the admonishment, that the prohibition of the use  
            of electronic or wireless devices applies to all forms of  
            communication, electronic research, or dissemination of  
            information about a case.  The bill would require the officer  
            in charge of a jury to prevent any use of an electronic or  
            wireless device to communicate, research, or disseminate  
            information about a case. 

          2)Updates existing civil and criminal contempt statutes by  
            establishing that courts have the authority to hold jurors in  
            contempt for willfully disobeying a court admonishment  
            relating to the prohibition of any form of electronic  
            communication, dissemination of information, or research about  
            a case.  

           EXISTING LAW  requires:

          1)The court in a civil proceeding during a jury trial to  








                                                                  AB 2217
                                                                  Page  2


            admonish the jury that it is their duty not to converse with,  
            or permit themselves to be addressed by, any other person on  
            any subject of the trial.  The court is required to provide  
            the admonishment when the jurors are permitted to separate  
            during the trial, and when the case is submitted to the jury.   


          2)The court in a criminal proceeding during a jury trial to  
            admonish the jury that it is their duty not to converse with,  
            or permit themselves to be addressed by, any other person on  
            any subject of the trial.  The court is required to provide  
            the admonishment after the jury has been sworn and before the  
            people's opening address, at each adjournment of the court,  
            and when the jurors are permitted by the court to separate  
            after the case is submitted to the jury.  

          3)That an officer in a civil proceeding, having the jury under  
            his or her charge, shall not permit any communication to be  
            made to them, or make any himself or herself.  

          4)That an officer in a criminal proceeding, having the jury  
            under his or her charge, shall not permit any communication to  
            be made to them, or make any himself or herself.  


           FISCAL EFFECT  :  According to the Assembly Appropriations:

          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  :  This non-controversial bill seeks to address the  
          increasing incidence of juror use, of electronic and wireless  
          devices, to conduct independent research on the internet or  
          communicate with others about cases.  Juror use of this media  
          may take several forms: jurors conducting independent research  
          on the case on the Internet; sending e-mails, text messages,  
          tweets or other communication conveying developments in a trial  
          or deliberations; or using the camera feature of mobile  
          technology to record courtroom proceedings.

          It is standard procedure for a court to admonish jurors of their  








                                                                  AB 2217
                                                                  Page  3


          duty not to converse with others or conduct independent research  
          until a verdict is rendered.  But recent use of electronic and  
          wireless devices by jurors 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 to conducting  
          Internet research  on the case they were hearing. 

          It is believed that more explicit mention in jury instructions  
          of the various methods and modes of electronic communication and  
          research would help jurors better understand and adhere to the  
          scope of the prohibition against the use of these devices.  The  
          Judicial Conference of the United States, the policy-making body  
          of the federal courts, has attempted to address this growing  
          problem through the release of model jury instructions.  The  
          model jury instructions the Judicial Conference released to the  
          federal judiciary specify:

               You may not communicate with anyone about the case on  
               your cellphone, through e-mail, Blackberry, iPhone,  
               text messaging, or on Twitter, through any blog or  
               website, through any internet chat room, or by way of  
               any other social networking websites, including  
               Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn and YouTube.

          California has also attempted to address the problem of improper  
          juror use of electronic and wireless devices.  California Civil  
          Jury Instruction 100, which is given at the outset of every  
          civil case, includes the following admonitions:

               Do not post any information about the trial or your  
               jury service on the Internet in any form. Do not send  
               or accept any messages, including e-mail or text  
               messages, to or from anyone concerning the trial or  
               your service.  ...

               Do not do any research on your own or as a group. Do  
               not use dictionaries, the Internet, or other reference  
               materials. Do not investigate the case or conduct any  
               experiments.   

          California Criminal Jury Instruction 101 includes similar  








                                                                  AB 2217
                                                                  Page  4


          provisions:

               Do not share information about the case in writing, by  
               email, or on the Internet. ... During the trial, do  
               not read, listen to, or watch any news report or  
               commentary about the case from any source.  

               Do not do any research on your own or as a group. Do  
               not use a dictionary, the Internet, or other reference  
               materials. ... 

               If you have a cell phone or other electronic device,  
               keep it turned off while you are in the courtroom and  
               during jury deliberations. An electronic device  
               includes any data storage device. If someone needs to  
               contact you in an emergency, the court can receive  
               messages that it will deliver to you without delay.

          This bill seeks to statutorily authorize the above type of  
          admonishments and clarify the scope of the prohibition  
          against the use of these devices under California law.  It  
          also seeks to provide courts with the authority to enforce  
          the prohibition by holding a disobedient juror in contempt.  
             

          Apropos of the consensus support for this measure at this time  
          are the comments submitted to the Committee by the Judicial  
          Council, which include that:

               The Judicial Council is extremely concerned that  
               jurors' use of electronic devices during the course of  
               a trial is becoming an increasingly significant threat  
               to the integrity of the justice system. While existing  
               law may indeed cover the use of improper use of  
               electronic communications by jurors, the courts would  
               welcome the clear statutory directive that the  
               admonition address the issue. In addition, as  
               important as the admonition is, the statutory  
               clarification that violators may be held in contempt  
               of court is important, and would provide the court  
               with necessary enforcement tools for use in  
               appropriate cases.

          Additional comments of support include those of the  








                                                                  AB 2217
                                                                  Page  5


          Consumer Attorneys of California, stating in part that:

               Recently, a number of instances of juror misconduct  
               have resulted in mistrials, which can further add to  
               the rising costs of litigation.  Broader access to  
               smart-phones and PDA devices have come at a cost to  
               California litigants.  In almost every state, courts  
               have confronted incidents where a juror impermissibly  
               accesses Google, Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter, or  
               Myspace to discuss the case or conduct amateur  
               investigations of the evidence and the parties.


           Analysis Prepared by  :    Drew Liebert / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 


                                                               FN:  0004016