BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1708
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 1, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Bob Wieckowski, Chair
AB 1708 (Alejo) - As Introduced: February 13, 2014
As Proposed to be Amended
SUBJECT : CRIMINAL JURY SERVICE: NEW PEACE OFFICER EXEMPTION
KEY ISSUES :
1)RATHER THAN HAVE TO MAKE CASE-BY-CASE REQUESTS FOR SPECIFIC
EMPLOYEES TO BE EXCUSED FROM JURY SERVICE IN CRIMINAL CASES,
SHOULD PAROLE, PROBATION, AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS (AND OTHER
SPECIFIED EMPLOYEES) BE EXEMPTED FROM JURY DUTY IN ALL
CRIMINAL CASES, AS IS THE APPROACH TAKEN WITH PATROL OFFICERS?
2)GIVEN THE JUDICIARY'S, AND BOTH JUDICIARY COMMITTEES',
LONG-STANDING RESISTANCE TO BROAD-SCALE EXEMPTIONS FROM JURY
SERVICE, SHOULD THE COMMITTEE CONSIDER THE POTENTIAL MERIT OF
PLACING A REASONABLE SUNSET ON THE MEASURE IN ORDER TO REVISIT
THIS ISSUE AFTER SEVERAL YEARS TO EVALUATE THE IMPACT SUCH A
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION HAS HAD ON THE JURY POOL PROCESS?
SYNOPSIS
Since 1975, the general rule regarding jury service has been
that all persons who are American citizens domiciled in
California who are at least 18 years of age and who have
sufficient knowledge of English are qualified to be prospective
jurors subject to two exceptions: 1) they face an undue
hardship, as set forth in Rule of Court 2.1008, or 2) they are
certain types of peace officers (such as a police officer or
sheriff).
Rather than similarly exempting all parole, probation, and
correctional officers from jury service, however, out of concern
such categorical exemptions would unduly impact the jury pool
process, in 2003 a legislative compromise was struck in
legislation (AB 513) sponsored then by the California
Correctional Peace Officers Association which required the
Judicial Council to adopt a court rule requiring the trial
courts to establish procedures for jury service that gives
parole, probation, and correctional peace officers scheduling
AB 1708
Page 2
accommodations when necessary in individual cases. The Judicial
Council thereafter adopted Rule of Court 2.1008(d)(6) that has
now been in place for the past decade to handle requests for
relief from jury service made by parole officers, probation
officers, and correctional officers on a case-by-case basis.
This bill, as proposed to be amended, seeks instead to exempt
parole, probation and correctional officers, and other specified
law enforcement-related employees, from jury service in criminal
trials only. According to the author, this expansion of the
peace officer jury service exemption is needed for several
reasons, including that, like other already-exempted peace
officers, correctional, probation and parole officers are
infrequently seated on juries, and requiring them to participate
on criminal juries creates a substantial cost for state law
enforcement agencies, especially at this challenging transition
time of realignment. Additionally, the author states that
probation, parole and correctional officers are in a position
where the defendant in a criminal trial could potentially be
under their jurisdiction in the future, which creates a public
safety risk to the peace officers by requiring personal
information to be shared.
In support of this bill, the California Correctional Peace
Officers Association notes that by exempting the above peace
officers from jury duty in criminal cases, this bill will reduce
costs in the state's correctional system. And that
additionally, the loss to the jury pool is insignificant because
public safety officers are often excused from jury service
during jury selection anyway. Furthermore, the Chief Probation
Officers of California, who are the sponsors of the bill this
year, state that allowing probation, parole and corrections
officers to serve as jurors in criminal trials can create a
public safety risk to the officers.
In opposition, the Judicial Council argues that categorical
exemptions are unnecessary because existing law and rules of
court already authorize courts to accommodate all prospective
jurors' schedules, or grant a hardship excuse in appropriate
circumstances, specifically as in the case of public safety.
The analysis notes that given the judiciary's, and both
judiciary committees', long-standing resistance to broad-scale
exemptions from jury service (indeed lawyers, for example --
including the Chief Justice and the Governor -- are not exempt
AB 1708
Page 3
from jury service, and some parole and correctional officers
currently get selected for jury service now in criminal cases
and presumably are fine jurors), the Committee may wish to
discuss with the author the potential merit of placing a
reasonable sunset on the measure in order to revisit this issue
after several years to evaluate the impact such a categorical
exemption has had on the jury pool process.
SUMMARY : Seeks, as proposed to be amended, to categorically
excuse from jury service in criminal cases only certain parole,
probation and correctional officers, employees of the Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the State Department of
Mental Health and Board of Parole Hearings. Specifically, this
bill excuses an otherwise eligible person from jury service in
criminal proceedings if that person is a peace officer defined
by subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 830.5 of the California
Penal Code.
EXISTING LAW :
1) Provides that all persons who are citizens of the United
States, at least 18 years of age, domiciled in the State of
California, and have sufficient knowledge of the English
language, are eligible and qualified to be prospective
jurors, subject to specific exceptions. (Code of Civil
Procedure section 203.)
2) Allows an eligible person to be excused from jury duty
in cases of undue hardship, upon the person or the public,
as defined by Judicial Council. (Code of Civil Procedure
section 204(b).) Need for the prospective juror's services
for the protection of public health and safety can be
grounds for undue hardship under certain circumstances.
(Court Rule 2.1008(d)(6) specifically provides that: "(6)
The prospective juror's services are immediately needed for
the protection of the public health and safety, and it is
not feasible to make alternative arrangements to relieve
the person of those responsibilities during the period of
service as a juror without substantially reducing essential
public services.")
3)Exempts certain peace officers (e.g., police officers and
sheriffs) from jury panels sent to courtrooms for voir dire in
civil and criminal matters, and other specified peace officers
from jury panels sent to courtrooms for voir dire in criminal
AB 1708
Page 4
matters. (Code of Civil Procedure section 219.)
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
COMMENTS : This bill, as proposed to be amended, seeks to exempt
parole, probation and correctional officers, and other specified
law enforcement-related employees, from jury service in criminal
trials only. According to the author, this expansion of the
peace officer jury service exemption is needed for several
reasons, including that, like other already-exempted peace
officers, correctional, probation and parole officers are
infrequently seated on juries, and requiring them to participate
on criminal juries creates a substantial cost for state law
enforcement agencies, especially at this challenging transition
time of realignment. Additionally, the author states that
probation, parole and correctional officers are in a position
where the defendant in a criminal trial could potentially be
under their jurisdiction in the future, which creates a public
safety risk to the peace officers by requiring personal
information to be shared.
In support, the author states:
Probation, parole and correctional officers are
responsible for critical public safety services
including supervising offenders on Post Release
Community Supervision (PRCS), Mandatory Supervision
(MS), probation, and parole as well as those serving
time in state and local detention facilities. Pulling
these officers away from their duties can
significantly impact an agency's ability to
effectively manage and administer programs and
supervision.
Peace officers are rarely selected to serve on
juries-particularly in criminal cases-and the time
spent reporting for jury duty is critical time spent
away from their public safety duties. Moreover,
probation, parole and correctional officers are in a
position where the defendant in a criminal trial could
potentially be under their jurisdiction in the future,
which creates a public safety risk to the peace
officers by requiring personal information to be
shared.
AB 1708
Page 5
The author's office further notes that sheriffs, municipal court
marshals, and a number of other peace officers are currently
exempt from serving jury duty. The author believes that the
addition of probation, parole, and correction officers to this
list of exempted peace officers is crucial to "maximiz[ing]
realignment resources and improv[ing] critical public safety
services."
Historical Concern About Creating a "Slippery Slope" : Prior to
1975, there were a host of jury service "carve outs," or
exemptions, from jury service. Each year, it seemed, another
bill was introduced to expand the exemption list and thereby
reduce the size of the pool of available jurors. As a result,
the Judiciary Committees of the Legislature, along with the
judiciary, embarked upon an effort to repeal these various jury
service "carve outs." In 1988, the last of the statutory
exemptions from jury duty was repealed, placing police officers
and judges on equal footing with the rest of the citizenry when
it came to jury service duties. The view of the Legislature at
that time was that adding specific exceptions for jury service
was a "slippery slope," especially considering the difficulties
in getting members of the public to serve.
However, there was political impetus in 1992 and 1994, to once
again create carve outs from jury service, adding an exemption
for specified peace officers and California Highway Patrol
officers from civil and criminal matters in 1992, and adding an
exemption for University of California police officers and
members of the Department of Corrections Law Enforcement Liaison
Unit in 1994. The rationale for reestablishing these jury
service exemptions was that these particular peace officers had
critical public safety functions "on the street," and they
needed to constantly be on the job to protect the public. For
the most part, efforts to exempt other public safety personnel
not considered to meet this exemption test were rejected by the
Legislature in the past decade due to concerns about the
"slippery slope" and the need to maximize those available to
serve on juries.
In addition to correctional, probation and parole officers,
there are still categories of peace officers that are not exempt
from jury duty. These include Los Angeles County safety police
officers, California Community College officers, school district
police, municipal utility district security and county water
AB 1708
Page 6
district security officers, local park rangers, Department of
Justice agents and investigators, various state departments
including the Departments of Fish and Game, Parks and
Recreation, Forestry and Fire Protection, and Consumer Affairs.
Other public employees who serve important public safety
functions, such as firefighters, are also not exempt.
As noted above, the Rules of Court have provided since 2005
situation-specific grounds for excusal from jury duty for
individuals such as correctional, probation and parole officers.
Rule 2.1008(d)(6) states that an individual may be exempted if
"the prospective juror's services are immediately needed for the
protection of the public health and safety, and it is not
feasible to make alternative arrangements to relieve the person
of those responsibilities during the period of service as a
juror without substantially reducing essential public services"
because it creates an undue hardship. This approach has allowed
peace officers that are not currently exempt to seek an
exemption due to undue hardship on a case-by-case basis since
their absence from public service would negatively impact public
health and safety. This measure will avoid the need to show any
such impact on a case-by-case basis and will exempt all
probation, correctional and parole officers, and other specified
employees in law enforcement-related work, from being called to
serve on any criminal trials.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The Chief Probation Officers of
California, a co-sponsor of this bill, argues that requiring
probation, parole and correctional officers to serve on juries
takes them away from critical public safety services. This can
"significantly impact an agency's ability to effectively manage
and administer programs and supervision." They further raise the
issue that requiring probation officers to serve on a jury could
create a potential safety risk for the officers. This is because
it requires them to share personal information as a part of jury
selection while they serve a role in the criminal justice system
supervising offenders. The Chief Probation Officers of
California believes this could put officers in a position where
the defendant in a criminal trial could potentially be under
their jurisdiction, creating a public safety risk for the
particular officer.
The L.A. County Probation Officers Union and Riverside Sheriffs'
Association believes that these exemptions would save courts and
counties significant costs. They state: "exemptions save the
AB 1708
Page 7
courts and counties significant costs by reducing the number of
jury summons required to be sent to law enforcement officers who
almost never end up serving on juries. The local or state
agency, however, is required to pay another officer to fill the
vacant post, usually at overtime rates, which unnecessarily
driv[e] up state and local costs."
The California Correction Peace Officers Association supports AB
1708. They assert that exempting certain probation, parole and
correctional officers from jury duty will "reduce costs to the
state's correctional system and help to insure that probationers
and parolees receive continuity of treatment and supervision."
They further argue that any loss to the jury pool from this
exemption would be insignificant because public safety officers
are so frequently excused from service during the jury selection
process.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Judicial Council of California
asserts that categorical exemptions for probation and
corrections officer are unnecessary because policies are in
place to grant an excuse or make a scheduling accommodation on a
case-by-case basis. The California Rules of Court, in Rule
2.1008, provide an excusal from jury service for undue hardship
for grounds including: lack of transportation, personal
obligation to provide care for another, and the prospective
juror's services being immediately needed for the protection of
the public health and safety.
The California Judges Association also opposes this measure,
stating in part that:
[We generally oppose] categorical exemptions from jury
service. Many courts struggle already with the
challenges of having enough jurors available for
prospective jury service, and the expansion of further
exemptions will further complicate this. This is
particularly true in less-populated counties, where we
understand residents may be called as often as twice
each year as prospective jurors.
Existing law and the voir dire process provide
adequate opportunity for scheduling accommodation or
excuse where allowable. Creating further categorical
exemptions harms the diversity of the jury pool and
increases the burden on the remaining
AB 1708
Page 8
prospective-juror community.
Issue : Given the judiciary's, and both judiciary committees',
long-standing resistance to broad-scale exemptions from jury
service, and some parole and correctional officers currently get
selected for jury service now in criminal cases and presumably
are fine jurors, the Committee may wish to discuss with the
author the potential merit of placing a reasonable sunset on the
measure in order to revisit this issue after several years to
evaluate the impact such a categorical exemption has had on the
jury pool process.
Prior Related Legislation That Passed : AB 513 (Matthews),
Chapter 353, 2003, requires the Judicial Council to adopt a rule
of court, requiring trial courts to establish jury service
procedures that provide Penal Code 830.5 peace officers -
correctional officers, parole agents and probation officers -
scheduling accommodations when necessary.
SB 303 (Torlakson), Chapter 55, 2001, exempts San Francisco Bay
Area Rapid Transit District police, as specified, from voir dire
in civil and criminal matters.
AB 1814 (Lempert), Chapter 266, 2000, requires the Judicial
Council to adopt a rule of court to specifically allow the
mother of a breastfed child to postpone jury duty for a period
of up to one year, providing that all steps should be taken to
eliminate the need for the mother to physically appear in court
to make this request, and providing that at the end of the one
year period, jury duty may be further postponed upon written
request. In addition, the bill requires the Judicial Council to
adopt a standardized jury summons for use around the state which
shall include a specific reference to the rules for
breastfeeding mothers.
SB 2066 (Rogers), Chapter 742, 1994, grants specific exemptions
for both California State University campus police and the Law
Enforcement Liaison Unit of the Department of Corrections.
AB 2577 (Wright), Chapter 324, 1992, grants specific exemptions
for California Highway Patrol Officers.
Prior Related Legislation That Failed : AB 1993 (Nakanishi),
2006, would have exempted active nurses who work at least 20
hours per week in directed patient care services from jury
AB 1708
Page 9
service in criminal and civil matters. Died in this Committee.
AB 270 (Bates), 2003-2004, would have exempted harbor and port
police from jury service in criminal and civil matters. Failed
in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
AB 1978 (Haynes), 2003-2004, would have provided that an
eligible person who is a single parent or guardian and has sole
custody of a minor child under 6 years of age or is a parent in
a 2-parent household who remains at home to care for a minor
child under 6 years of age may be excused from jury service.
Died in this Committee.
AB 2253 (Mountjoy), 2003-2004, would have permitted the
exclusion of a prospective juror who is 75 years of age or
older, if that person wishes to be excused. Failed in this
Committee.
AB 2271 (Parra), 2003-2004, would have prohibited correctional
officers employed by the Department of Corrections from being
selected for voir dire in civil or criminal matters. Died in
the Senate Public Safety Committee.
AB 1660 (Negrete McLeod), 2001-2002, would have exempted an
eligible person who serves as a pollworker at a national
statewide or local election from jury service for a period of
one year following the date of the election at which the
pollworker serves. Died in this Committee.
AB 1970 (Matthews), 2001-2002, sought to add parole, probation
and correctional peace officers to those exempted from jury
service. Died in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
AB 2819 (Cardoza), 1999-2000, would have provided that every
physician and surgeon, and every registered nurse, who is
employed by a health care facility, as defined, shall be excused
from jury service on the basis of undue hardship to the public
during any period and in any area of the state in which the
Governor has declared a state of emergency because of an
epidemic caused by any contagious disease. Died in this
Committee.
SB 801 (Poochigian), 1999-2000, would have exempted an active
judge of a court of record from jury service, as specified.
Failed in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
AB 1708
Page 10
SB 1864 (Mountjoy), 1999-2000, would have provided that any
person who is self-employed full time in a licensed business
that is his or her primary source of income, and for whom jury
service would cause a substantial financial hardship, would be
excused from jury service on the basis of undue hardship.
Failed in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
AB 316 (Morrissey), 1997-1998, would have exempted local agency
park rangers and Los Angeles County safety police from civil and
criminal jury duty and also exempts state university police and
Department of Corrections Law Enforcement Liaison officers from
civil jury duty, in addition to their current exemption from
criminal jury duty. Failed in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
AB 2608 (Wildman), 1997-1998, would have required the Judicial
Council to adopt a rule of court requiring every trial court to
adopt a requirement limiting the jury service of firefighters to
either one trial, or one day on call, except in those counties
which can demonstrate good cause why such a requirement is
impractical. Died in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
AB 2603 (Napolitano), 1993-1994, would have included within the
definition of "undue hardship" certificated employees of school
districts who are summoned to appear for jury service, but are
denied leaves of absence with pay by a school district governing
board. Died in this Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support :
Chief Probation Officers of California (sponsor)
State Coalition of Probation Organizations (sponsor)
Los Angeles County Probation Officers Union
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
California Correctional Peace Officers Association
Opposition :
Judicial Council of California
California Judges Association
Analysis Prepared by : Drew Liebert / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
AB 1708
Page 11