BILL ANALYSIS
SB 319
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 23, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
SB 319 (Harman) - As Amended: April 22, 2009
PROPOSED CONSENT
SENATE VOTE : 39-0
SUBJECT : JURY SERVICE: OPTIONAL COUNTY ENFORCEMENT TOOLS
KEY ISSUES :
1)SHOULD CURRENT LAW, WHICH AUTHORIZES SUPERIOR COURTS TO IMPOSE
A SYSTEM OF REASONABLE MONETARY SANCTIONS ON JURORS WHO FAIL
TO RESPOND TO A SUMMONS, TO INCREASE JUROR RESPONSES, BE
EXTENDED INDEFINITELY?
2)SHOULD CURRENT LAW, WHICH REQUIRES COURTS TO WAIT 12 MONTHS
BEFORE INITIATING THE SANCTION PROCESS, BE AMENDED TO ALLOW
COURTS TO INITIATE THE PROCESS 90 DAYS FROM THE INITIAL
SUMMONS, TO ACCOMMODATE COURTS WITH SMALLER JUROR POOLS THAT
MAY BE DISADVANTAGED BY THE 12-MONTH REQUIREMENT?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
This non-controversial bill seeks to carry out recommendations
made by the Judicial Council in a statutorily required report to
the Legislature. Existing law allows superior courts, until
January 1, 2010, to pursue an alternate course against jurors
who do not respond to a summons, by allowing those courts to
impose monetary sanctions rather than contempt penalties. The
Judicial Council's report indicates that this option has proven
successful in at least one county, Los Angeles, where the courts
have opted for the monetary sanction approach and have, as a
result, seen a 9-10% increase in juror responses. This bill
seeks to allow more counties to choose this effective monetary
sanction approach by eliminating the sunset date in the current
law. The bill additionally seeks to follow the Judicial
SB 319
Page 2
Council's recommendation that the amount of time that must lapse
before a court may initiate a compliance action be reduced from
12 months to 90 days, while providing courts the discretion to
initiate the process anywhere in between 90 days and 12 months.
The Judicial Council noted that the current 12-month requirement
may inadvertently put courts with smaller jury pools at a
disadvantage compared to their larger neighbors. This bill was
approved on April 27, 2009 in the Senate by a vote of 39-0. The
bill has no known opposition.
SUMMARY : Seeks to more broadly provide superior courts with
proven tools to enhance responses to jury summons.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that, in lieu of imposing contempt penalties after an
order to show cause hearing on jurors who fail to respond to
summonses, courts are authorized to impose reasonably monetary
sanctions of no more than $250 for a first violation, $750 for
a second violation, and $1,500 for the third and any
subsequent violation. The sanction may be imposed on 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, as specified.
2)Requires that the second summons be issued no earlier than 90
days after the initial failure to appear.
3)Extends the above provisions indefinitely by deleting the
January 1, 2010 sunset date from existing law.
EXISTING LAW :
1)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).)
2)Provides that, in lieu of imposing sanctions for contempt, the
court may impose reasonable monetary sanctions on a
SB 319
Page 3
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. Provides that these provisions
shall remain in effect until January 1, 2010. (Code of Civil
Procedure section 209(b), 209(e).)
3)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 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); California Rules of Court, rule 2.1010.)
4)Required the Judicial Council, 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 of Civil
Procedure section 209(d).)
COMMENTS: AB 1180 (Harman, Chapter 359 of 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 of Civil Procedure section
209.) In February 2009, the JC issued its report, Jury
Sanctions: 2008 Report to the Legislature (JC Report). Based on
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
SB 319
Page 4
money imposed and collected, and use of funds); 3) efficacy of
default procedures; and 4) recommendations for amendments to
Section 209.
Of the 58 superior courts, only Los Angeles County Superior
Court (LACSC) reported that it employed 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 at all; and eight courts did not
respond. The following information and data were 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% 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%
gain in jurors over those responding to the initial summons).
Thus for the County of Los Angeles at least, the AB 1180
sanctions program has helped improve juror appearances.
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 show that from January 2004 to October 31,
2008, $8,470,951 in sanctions were imposed and only (relatively)
$586,335 of the imposed sanctions was paid to the court. The
average sanction imposed was $250. The court was unable to
track any monies allocated to family or civil courts.
Vacating sanctions by default . The JC Report states, "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
SB 319
Page 5
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
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."
Reduced time frame for initiating the sanction process . 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 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 6
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.
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 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."
SB 319
Page 7
This bill would implement three of the four recommendations of
the JC Report . The JC Report makes four recommendations for
amendments to section 209. SB 319 would implement three of the
four recommendations. (The bill, as amended in Committee, would
not follow the recommendation to 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].)
The bill 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.
SB 319 would also implement recommendations three and four.
Recommendation three is to delete section 209(e), the January 1,
2010 sunset provision. Recommendation four is to delete section
209(d), the JC Report requirement.
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.
PRIOR LEGISLATION : AB 2303 (Committee on Judiciary), Chapter
567 of 2006: Judiciary: omnibus bill. Extended the operative
date of the monetary sanction provisions to January 1, 2010, and
provided that the Judicial Council report to the Legislature by
December 31, 2008, regarding implementation of those provisions.
AB 1180 (Harman), Chapter 359 of 2003: Jury duty: new fines for
failure to serve. Permitted courts, in lieu of imposing
potentially severe penalties for contempt, to impose graduated
and uniform monetary penalties upon prospective jurors who fail
to show up for jury service. Monetary sanctions were limited to
no more than $250 for the first violation, $750 for the second
SB 319
Page 8
violation, and $1,500 for the third and any subsequent violation
in which a prospective juror who has failed to respond and has
not been excused, after first providing the juror with a notice
and an opportunity to be heard. Expressed the intent of the
Legislature that funds derived from the sanctions be allocated
to the family and civil courts; required the Judicial Council to
provide a procedure for prospective jurors against whom a
sanction has been imposed by default to move to set aside the
default; required the Judicial Council to report to the
Legislature regarding the effects of implementing these
provisions on or before December 31, 2005; and provided that the
provisions would remain effective until January 1, 2007, unless
extended by statute.
REGISTERED SUPPORT/OPPOSITION :
Support :
Judicial Council (sponsor)
Opposition :
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Drew Liebert and Rachel Anderson / JUD. /
(916) 319-2334