BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1709
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 18, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 1709 (Mitchell) - As Amended: March 14, 2012
Policy Committee: Public SafetyVote:4-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill entitles any minor, 16 years of age or older at the
time of the commission of an offense that could be used as a
future felony conviction under the three strikes law, to a jury
trial. Specifically, this bill:
1)Specifies the right to a jury trial does not affect the right
to a trial within 15 days of the filing of the petition to
declare the youth a ward of the court.
2)Removes the authority of the juvenile court to temporarily
commit a minor who has been adjudicated a ward of the court
due to habitual disobedience or truancy to a diagnostic and
treatment center of the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation's Division of Juvenile Facilities.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Ongoing major state trial court costs, potentially in the
range of $20 million, for jury trials for juveniles.
According to preliminary estimates by the Judicial Council,
based upon petition filing data from the Department of Justice
(DOJ) for 2010, this bill would allow about 9,000 wards to
request a jury trial. If 10% of this number request and
receive a jury trial, and the trials average five days, the
annual GF cost for these trials would be about $18 million.
(This estimate assumes the five days is in addition to a
current average one-day court proceeding.)
AB 1709
Page 2
In addition, the costs for summoning and compensating jurors
would be in the range of $1.2 million, assuming an average of
75 jurors per trial and $17 per juror.
2)The Judicial Council notes that based on these figures, there
would be about a 15% increase in the number of jury trials
statewide, resulting in unknown but significant state trial
court costs at a time when years of baseline reductions to the
judicial branch budget have limited access to courtrooms and
services. Over the past four fiscal years, the judicial branch
has experienced a cumulative ongoing reduction of about $650
million. Over the last four years, state trial courts have
absorbed more than a 20% reduction in GF support. According
to the Judicial Council, the courts are no longer able to
absorb the ongoing reductions without significant impact to
the public, including the ability to continue to provide the
services necessary to meet the constitutional obligation to
adjudicate in a timely manner all matters that come before the
courts.
3)Unknown but potentially significant GF costs, in the low
millions of dollars, for appeal-related legal work by the DOJ.
Preliminary DOJ analysis indicates significant, anticipating
large numbers of current inmates will file new appeals,
resulting in additional legal workload including responses to
appeals, supplemental briefs, and petitions filed in state and
federal court by three strikes offenders.
COMMENTS
1) Rationale. The author contends juveniles facing the
consequences of a strike should have the option of a jury
trial.
"One of the most fundamental due process rights in American
Jurisprudence, that of right to a jury trial, is a right not
afforded to youths in the juvenile justice system. Juvenile
courts are closed in an effort to assure that the privacy of the
minor is respected. This is true even when youths are being
tried for offenses that would count as a strike against their
criminal record-potentially subjecting them to life in prison.
AB 1709
Page 3
In these cases minors should have the option of forgoing privacy
to ensure due process?.
"The passage of Proposition 21 in 1998 created an anomaly in the
law allowing the use of juvenile adjudications as "strikes" in
future sentencings. Accordingly, any youth 16 or older who
commits one of any number of offenses, will, if sentenced face
the possibility of either a doubled sentence or a sentence of
twenty five years to life. The implementation of this law has
subjected juveniles to a system where they must now face adult
consequences, without some of the basic protections afforded
adults. These minors can be subjected to life in prison based
on offenses committed while they were under the age of 16,
despite the reality that they were not entitled to have a jury
decide innocence or guilt.
As noted in the Assembly Public Safety Committee analysis, in
1971, the U.S. Supreme Court held that despite the other
Constitutional protections extended to minors in juvenile court
proceedings, minors were not entitled to a jury trial in order
to comply with due process. In coming to this conclusion, the
court emphasized superior diagnostic and rehabilitative
services, the lower level of culpability, and the intimate,
informal and protective approach of the juvenile court that
sought to rehabilitate rather than punish. Given Proposition
21, however, it is debatable whether the court would find today
that the rehabilitative nature of the juvenile court is best
preserved without jury trials.
2) Support. According to the bill's sponsor, the California
Public Defenders Association, "Because there is no right to a
jury trial in juvenile court, overcharging and overfiling of
cases is a common problem. It is commonly known that
overcharging is a regular practice in juvenile court:
"Wobblers" - offenses which could be filed as misdemeanors or
felonies at the discretion of the prosecutor--, and which would
be filed as misdemeanors in adult court, are filed as felonies
in juvenile court?.
"The problem with overfilling of charges is most evident when
the prosecutor can allege a "strike offense," because the youth
is then almost compelled to plea bargain and admit a lesser
offense - even if he had nothing to do with the charge, because
AB 1709
Page 4
the risk of having a petition sustained by the juvenile court
may be considered too high.
"Because the judge is the one who will make the determination
of whether the petition should be sustained or not, issues that
would otherwise be litigated aggressively before a jury, with
the presentation of experts - the likelihood of a false
confessions, for example - may be seen by the juvenile court as
a waste of time and resources, as the court may feel "it has
heard it all before." Inevitably, this attitude "trickles
down" to the defenders, who see the futility in pursuing
investigations, appointing experts, or conducting a vigorous
motion practice. In addition, relaxed evidentiary rules in
juvenile proceedings allow in evidence that would be excluded
in adult court, where due process concerns are respected as
essential to a determination of guilt or innocence.
3) Nine states allow juvenile jury trials, 11 provide jury
trials for juveniles under limited circumstances , and 30 states
do not allow for juvenile jury trials (National Center for
Juvenile Justice, 2008).
4)Current law specifies a prior juvenile adjudication is a strike
if all the following apply:
a) The juvenile was 16 years of age or older at the time of the
offense.
b) The prior offense was an offense for which a minor can be
certified to adult court, or an offense defined as a serious
or violent felony in the Penal Code.
c) The juvenile is a proper subject to be dealt with under
juvenile court law.
d) The juvenile was adjudged a ward of the court because the
juvenile committed one of the above offenses.
1)Opposition .
a)According to the California District Attorneys Association,
"this bill would not only extend greater rights than are
constitutionally required for minors who commit the most
serious and violent offenses by conferring on them the right
to jury trial, but would compound the difficulty by requiring
AB 1709
Page 5
that the People bring them to jury trial within only 15 days
(with no preliminary hearing). It must be noted that the
language of the bill that provides for trial "within 15 days"
is actually inconsistent with current law (15 judicial days)
and would result in even greater time pressure. Given that
the offenses in question are by definition Welfare and
Institutions Code section 707(b) offenses committed by minors
16 or older, the practical result of all this will be that
prosecutors will likely direct file all such offenses into the
adult court pursuant to WIC 707(d).
"Apart from these legal ramifications, the logistical
problems that would arise should this bill
become law are very significant. Many counties, particularly
in more populous jurisdictions,
have separate facilities for the juvenile court, and those
facilities are not designed to
accommodate jury trials. Additionally, the scheduling issues
that will arise and the number of additional jurors who would
need to be called would all contribute to additional burdens
on the courts, at a time when court funding has been
significantly cut."
b)According to the Judicial Council, this bill cannot be
implemented within the current structure of the courts. "Many
juvenile court facilities in California have no means to
accommodate juries. They have no jury boxes in the court rooms
and no jury assembly rooms in the courthouses. As a result,
court facilities would need to be modified as significant
expense to accommodate these trials, or juvenile court
proceedings would need to be held in the adult criminal court
facility. The latter result would be costly and disruptive.
Because the jury trial would need to be held within 15 days,
courts would be challenged to call a sufficient number of
jurors to meet this new demand. Moreover, trying to add
numerous additional trials into already heavily burdened
criminal court facilities would harm the court's ability to
meet its existing criminal court calendars."
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
AB 1709
Page 6