BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 319|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
CONSENT
Bill No: SB 319
Author: Harman (R)
Amended: 4/22/09
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 5-0, 4/21/09
AYES: Corbett, Harman, Florez, Leno, Walters
SUBJECT : Jury service
SOURCE : The Judicial Council
DIGEST : This bill (1) provides 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, and (2) provides that the second
summons may be issued no earlier than 90 days after the
initial failure to appear.
ANALYSIS : 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 of Civil Procedure Section 209(a).)
Existing law provides that, in lieu of imposing sanctions
CONTINUED
SB 319
Page
2
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
the previous summons and ordering the person to appear for
jury duty. Upon the failure to appear in response to the
second summons, the court m ay 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 of Civil Procedure Section 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 Judicial
Council (JC) must provide a procedure for a prospective
juror to move to set aside a sanction imposed by default.
(Code of Civil Procedure Section 209(c); Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 2.1010.)
This bill provides 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 provides that the second summons may be issued no
earlier than 90 days after the initial failure to appear.
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 monies 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 of Civil Procedure Section 209(d).)
Existing law provides that Section 209 shall remain in
SB 319
Page
3
effect until January 1, 2010. (Code of Civil Procedure
Section 209(e).)
This bill deletes Section 209(d) and (e).
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 4/22/09)
The Judicial Council (source)
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The sponsor, the Judicial Council,
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 the court has a much larger pool
of jurors than any other court in the state and because 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 not 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 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 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.
SB 319
Page
4
"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 pools in
larger cities. 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."
RJG:cm 4/22/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****