BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2217|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2217
Author: Fuentes (D)
Amended: 8/3/10 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 6/29/10
AYES: Leno, Cogdill, Cedillo, Hancock, Huff, Steinberg,
Wright
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 71-0, 4/26/10 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Jurors: electronic communications
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill makes it clear that admonishments by
the court to juries regarding communications include
communication by means of electronic and wireless devices
to communicate, research, or disseminate information about
an ongoing case.
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/3/10 add double-jointing
language.
ANALYSIS : Existing law requires the court in a civil
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
CONTINUED
AB 2217
Page
2
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. (Civil Code
Section 611.)
This bill provides that the courts shall clearly explain,
as part of the admonishment that the prohibition on
research, dissemination of information, and conversation
applies to all forms of electronic and wireless
communication.
Existing law requires 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. (Civil Code Section 613.)
This bill provides that communication includes any type of
communication including any form of electronic or wireless
communication.
Existing law provides that specified acts or omissions in
respect to a court of justice are contempt's of the
authority of the court. (Code of Civil Procedure Section
1209)
This bill provides that the willful disobedience by a juror
of a court admonishment related to the prohibition on any
form of communication or research about the case, including
all forms of electronic or wireless communication or
research is contempt of court.
Existing law specifies that specified contempt's of court
are a misdemeanor.
This bill provides that the willful disobedience by a juror
of a court admonishment related to the prohibition on any
form of communication or research about the case, including
all forms of electronic or wireless communication or
research is a contempt of court that is a misdemeanor.
Existing law requires 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.
CONTINUED
AB 2217
Page
3
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. (Penal Code Section 1122.)
This bill provides also that jurors shall not converse
among themselves or with anyone else, conduct research or
disseminate information on any subject connected with the
trial.
This bill provides that the court shall clearly explain, as
part of the admonishment that the prohibition on
conversation research and dissemination of information
applies to all forms of electronic and wireless
communication.
Existing law requires 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. (Penal Code Section 1128.)
This bill clarifies that communication means any form of
electronic or wireless communication.
This bill is double-jointed with AB 2632 (Davis).
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/2/10)
Judicial Council of California
Civil Justice Association of California
California District Attorneys Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
"Existing law requires that at specified intervals, the
court in 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.
"Although this admonition arguably includes the use of
CONTINUED
AB 2217
Page
4
electronic communications, the fact that this kind of
communication is not expressly included has resulted in
increased problems in courts across the country. For
example, in one case the conviction of a state senator in
Pennsylvania is being appealed because jurors discussed the
case on Facebook and Twitter. In another case, a $12.6
million verdict was appealed because a juror's Twitter
messages sent before and after the trial showed that he was
biased against the Defendant. "Tweeting" and "Googling"
jurors have caused numerous mistrials."
In support the Judicial Council states, "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
improper use of electronic communications by jurors, the
council welcomes the clear statutory directive that the
admonition address the issue. In addition, given the
importance of the admonition, the statutory clarification
that violators may be held in contempt of court is also
important, and would provide the court with necessary
enforcement tools for use in appropriate cases."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Adams, Ammiano, Anderson, Beall, Bill Berryhill, Tom
Berryhill, Blakeslee, Block, Blumenfield, Bradford,
Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Charles Calderon, Carter,
Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon,
DeVore, Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong,
Fuentes, Gaines, Garrick, Gilmore, Hagman, Hall, Harkey,
Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill, Huber, Huffman, Jeffries,
Jones, Knight, Lieu, Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma,
Mendoza, Miller, Monning, Nava, Nestande, Niello,
Nielsen, Norby, Portantino, Ruskin, Saldana, Silva,
Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Audra Strickland, Swanson,
Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Tran, Villines, Yamada
NO VOTE RECORDED: Arambula, Bass, Fuller, Furutani,
Galgiani, V. Manuel Perez, Salas, John A. Perez, Vacancy
RJG:do 8/3/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
CONTINUED
AB 2217
Page
5
**** END ****
CONTINUED