BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Ellen M. Corbett, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
SB 319
Senator Harman
As Amended April 2, 2009
Hearing Date: April 21, 2009
Code of Civil Procedure
ADM:jd
SUBJECT
Jury Service
DESCRIPTION
This bill would provide that, if a juror fails to respond to an
initial summons, the court may issue a second summons indicating
that the person failed to appear in response to a previous
summons and ordering the person to appear for jury duty.
This bill would provide that the second summons may be issued no
earlier than 90 days after the initial failure to appear.
(This analysis reflects author's amendments to be offered in
committee.)
BACKGROUND
Assembly Bill 1180 (Harman, Ch. 359, Stats. 2003) required the
Judicial Council (JC) to report to the Legislature on the impact
of superior courts' imposition of monetary sanctions, in lieu of
fines for criminal contempt, on jurors who fail to appear as
required by a juror summons. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 209.) In
February 2009, the JC issued its report, Jury Sanctions: 2008
Report to the Legislature (JC Report). As a result of a survey
sent to California's 58 counties, the report addresses the
following: 1) changes in rates of response to juror summonses;
2) sanctions (number of times ordered, amount of money imposed
and collected, and use of funds); 3) efficacy of default
procedures; and 4) recommendations for amendments to Section
209.
(more)
SB 319 (Harman)
Page 2 of ?
Of the 58 superior courts, only Los Angeles County Superior
Court (LACSC) reported employing the Section 209 sanctions
program. Twenty-seven courts, which included LACSC, reported a
notice procedure or program to follow-up with jurors who failed
to appear; 23 courts reported not using a failure to appear
(FTA) program; and eight courts did not respond. The following
information and data was culled from LACSC's survey responses.
Changes in rates of response to juror summonses :
In 2006, the court summoned 2,853,226 people for service.
1,329,103 responded to the initial summons. Under the juror
sanctions program, an additional 137,445 jurors responded to
various notices of delinquency (representing an additional 10
percent gain in jurors over those responding to the initial
summons).
In 2007, the court summoned 3,130,866 people for service.
1,526,926 responded to the initial summons. Under the juror
sanctions program, an additional 136,769 jurors responded to
various notices of delinquency (representing an additional 9
percent gain in jurors over those responding to the initial
summons).
Sanctions and use of funds; sanction data
The JC Report states that "[c]ourts that operate [FTA] programs
focus the policy goals of their programs on compliance and
completion of jury service, not punishment through monetary
sanctions."
The sanctions data shows that from January 2004 to October 31,
2008, $8,470,951 in sanctions were imposed and $586,335 was paid
to the court; the average sanction imposed was $250; and the
court was unable to track any monies allocated to family or
civil courts.
Vacating sanctions by default
"In [LACSC], no jurors have filed motions to set aside sanctions
given that the court provides other opportunities to vacate
sanctions." The data on total sanctions imposed by default
shows: "[f]rom 2004 to October 31, 2008, an average of 55,000
jurors per week were summoned to the court for jury service.
For the four-year period, 38,158 jurors were sanctioned at OSC
(order to show cause) hearings by default for failing to appear
for jury service. In that same period, sanctions entered by
SB 319 (Harman)
Page 3 of ?
default were set aside for 5,446 jurors who contacted the court
in writing or by telephone and completed jury service or were
determined to be unqualified to serve. 2,280 of the jurors
sanctioned by default paid their sanctions in full."
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
1. Existing law provides that any prospective juror who has
been summoned for service, and who fails to attend as directed
or to respond to the court or jury commissioner may be
attached (seized) and compelled to attend. Following an order
to show cause hearing, the court may find the prospective
juror in contempt of court, punishable by fine, incarceration,
or both, as otherwise provided by law. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.
209(a).)
Existing law provides that, in lieu of imposing sanctions for
contempt, the court may impose reasonable monetary sanctions
on a prospective juror who has not been excused after first
providing notice and an opportunity to be heard. If a juror
fails to respond to the initial summons within 12 months, the
court may issue a second summons indicating that the person
failed to appear in response to a previous summons and
ordering the person to appear for jury duty. Upon the failure
to appear in response to the second summons, the court may
issue a failure to appear notice informing the person that
failure to respond may result in monetary sanctions. If the
person does not attend the court within the time period
directed in the failure to appear notice, the court shall
issue an order to show cause. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 209(b).)
Existing law limits monetary sanctions to $250 for the first
violation, $750 for the second violation, and $1,500 for the
third and any subsequent violation. The JC must provide a
procedure for a prospective juror to move to set aside a
sanction imposed by default. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 209(c);
Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.1010.)
This bill would provide that, if a juror fails to respond to
an initial summons, the court may issue a second summons
indicating that the person failed to appear in response to a
previous summons and ordering the person to appear for jury
duty.
This bill would provide that the second summons may be issued
SB 319 (Harman)
Page 4 of ?
no earlier than 90 days after the initial failure to appear.
2. Existing law required the JC, on or before December 31,
2008, to report to the Legislature regarding the effects of
the implementation of the monetary sanctions provisions of
Section 209(b) and (c). The report was required to include
information regarding any change in rates of response to juror
summons; the amount of moneys collected; the efficacy of the
default procedure; and how, if at all, the Legislature may
wish to alter the Trial Jury Selection and Management Act to
further attainment of its objectives. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.
209(d).)
Existing law provides that Section 209 shall remain in effect
until January 1, 2010. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 209(e).)
This bill would delete Section 209(d) and (e).
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
The sponsor, the JC, writes:
The 12-month minimum time for initiation of the [Section
209(b)] sanction process is necessary and effective in the
Superior Court of Los Angeles County's compliance process
because that court has a much larger pool of jurors than any
other court in the state and because of the size, demographic,
and transient nature of their jury pool; the associated
complexities of their summoning process; and the costs and
judicial time needed to administer such a large program.
However, courts with smaller jury pools should not have to
wait 12 months to initiate the compliance process.
A minimum period of 90 days is reasonable and gives jurors
ample time to respond to jury summonses and complete jury
service. The current statutory mandate allowing delinquent
jurors a 12-month period in which to respond is not fair in
smaller courts to those who do appear on the initial summons
and who are thereafter exempt from service for a period of
twelve months pursuant to California Rule of Court 2.1008(e).
In other words, the statute as currently written prohibits all
courts from starting a compliance action until the same period
of time lapses for which we exempt jurors who actually appear
for service. During the 12-month period that is part of its
SB 319 (Harman)
Page 5 of ?
program, the Superior Court of Los Angeles County keeps
non-responding jurors in the pool of available jurors while
simultaneously tracking them under the sanctions programs,
([i.e. the Section 209(b)] Sanctions Program or Postcard
Program). However, it is not necessary to require all courts
to wait this long when 90 days is a reasonable minimum period.
We live in a very mobile society. People move more
frequently. For courts that do not update their master lists
or sanctions lists more than twice per year, decreasing the
waiting period to 90 days increases the likelihood that the
juror will be located at his or her last known place of
residence.
Further, the 12-month period appears to have had the effect of
deterring some courts from using [Section 209(b)]. Allowing a
shorter period of time to lapse before the court can initiate
a compliance action will make it worthwhile for more courts to
do so, especially those with jury pools that are substantially
smaller than the pool in larger counties. Nine courts
reported that they based their sanctions programs on the
notice elements of [Section 209(b)], but are unable to
implement such a program because of the 12-month waiting
period. Each of these courts begins following up with jurors
who failed to appear within 14-90 days and does not levy
sanctions.
[Section 209(b)] has proven to be a useful method of pursuing
jurors who fail to appear in response to a juror summons.
While only one of the 58 superior courts has implemented this
provision, others use a form of it, and it has been a
beneficial tool for jury administration and management. It is
clear that the implementation of such programs does not
generate revenue for the courts. Statewide, these programs
promote compliance with the jury system and greater respect
for the judicial system.
2. Goals of Code of Civil Procedure Section 209
The JC Report states:
The goals of [Section 209(b)] are to provide courts with a
less onerous juror summons enforcement mechanism than criminal
SB 319 (Harman)
Page 6 of ?
contempt proceedings and to ensure that prospective jurors
fulfill their jury service obligations. By allowing the
imposition of graduated money sanctions, after notice and an
opportunity to be heard, section 209(b) generally assists
judges and jury managers in the process of jury administration
and management so that the court may more efficiently
facilitate jury service, serve judges seeking jury panels, and
improve the juror experience.
3. Senate Bill 319 would implement three of the four
recommendations of the JC Report
The JC Report makes four recommendations for amendments to
Section 209. Senate Bill 319 would implement three of the four
recommendations. The bill, as proposed to be amended in
committee, would not delete the legislative intent language that
designates that sanction monies be allocated, to the extent
feasible, to the family and civil courts (recommendation number
two). (See Comment 4.) A caveat that should be kept in mind
with respect to the recommendations and the amendments based
thereon is that the JC Report's data comes solely from LACSC.
Senate Bill 319 would implement recommendation number one by
amending Section 209(b) to provide that the second summons may
be issued no earlier than 90 days after an initial failure to
appear. (See Background for rationale for this amendment.)
Senate Bill 319 would also implement recommendations three and
four, which delete Section 209(e) and 209(d), respectively.
The JC Report states that the survey results indicate that the
failure to appear provisions of Section 209 "have afforded the
courts a useful option for enforcing juror summonses. The
sunset date [Section 209(e)] and reporting requirements [Section
209(d)] were, in part, intended to allow the Judicial Council to
demonstrate to the Legislature's satisfaction that the monetary
sanctions would not unfairly or inappropriately burden
low-income Californians who may have legitimate reasons for
failing to appear or to respond to the juror summons." The JC
asserts that its Report demonstrates that monetary sanctions are
imposed sparingly and are one option courts may choose to employ
to encourage compliance with jury service requirements.
Committee staff notes that, while the LACSC is the largest court
system in the state, the JC Report was based upon information
and data solely from LACSC. The Committee may want to consider
requiring a further report once there is a statewide data
SB 319 (Harman)
Page 7 of ?
collection system - statewide court case management system
(CCMS) - in place that would allow for uniform data collection
on failure to appear programs.
4. Author's amendment
To correct a drafting error, on page 3, line 14, insert:
It is the intent of the Legislature that the funds derived from
the monetary sanctions authorized by this section be allocated,
to the extent feasible, to the family courts and the civil
courts.
Support : None Known
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : The Judicial Council
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation :
AB 1180 (Harman, Ch. 359, Stats. 2003) permits the court, in
lieu of imposing penalties for contempt, to impose reasonable
monetary sanctions of no more than $250 for a first violation,
$750 for a second violation, and $1,500 for a third and any
subsequent violation, upon a prospective juror who has failed to
respond and who has not been excused, after first providing the
prospective juror with notice and an opportunity to be heard.
The bill expresses the Legislature's intent that funds derived
from the sanctions be allocated, to the extent feasible, to the
family and civil courts. The bill also requires the JC to
provide a procedure for prospective jurors against whom a
sanction has been imposed by default to move to set aside the
default.
**************
SB 319 (Harman)
Page 8 of ?