BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1708
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2014
Counsel: Gabriel Caswell
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AB 1708 (Alejo) - As Amended: April 9, 2014
SUMMARY : Exclude additional certain parole officers, probation
officers, deputy probation officers, board coordinating parole
agents, correctional officers, transportation officers of a
probation department, and other employees of the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation, the State Department of State
Hospitals, and the Board of Parole Hearings, from jury service
in criminal matters.
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 �
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 � 204
subd. (b).)
3)Defines the presence of an "undue hardship" when: (California
Rules of Court (CRC), Rule 860.)
a) A prospective juror lacks a reasonably available means
of public or private transportation to get to the
courthouse;
b) A prospective juror would have to travel an "excessive"
distance, defined as exceeding one and one-half hours from
the prospective juror's home to the courthouse;
c) Becoming a prospective juror would cause the prospective
AB 1708
Page 2
juror an extreme financial burden;
d) Becoming a prospective juror would cause an undue risk
of material injury to, or destruction of, the prospective
juror's property or property entrusted to the prospective
juror;
e) A prospective juror has a physical or mental disability
or impairment that would expose the potential juror to
undue risk of mental or physical harm;
f) There is a need of the prospective juror's services for
the protection of the public health and safety; or,
g) When a prospective juror has a personal obligation to
provide actual and necessary care to another person
including sick, aged, or infirm dependents, including a
child who requires the prospective juror's personal care
and attention, and no comparable substitute care is either
available or practical without imposing an undue economic
hardship on the prospective juror or the person cared for.
(California Rules of Court (CRC), Rule 860.)
4)Specifies the 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.")
5)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
matters. (Code of Civil Procedure � 219.)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "Probation,
AB 1708
Page 3
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.
Currently, sheriffs, municipal court marshals, and various
other peace officers are exempted from jury duty. In order to
maximize realignment resources and improve critical public
safety services, this bill will add probation, parole and
correctional officers to the list of peace officers exempted
from jury duty."
2)History of Jury Service Carve Outs in California : Prior to the
1980's, there were a host of jury service "carve outs"; and
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 Legislature worked with
the judiciary in the 1980's to repeal 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 state's citizenry
when it came to jury service duties.
However, the Legislature has reinstated the existing
exemptions for certain peace officers. The rationale for
re-establishing these jury service exemptions was that these
particular peace officers perform critical public safety
functions and are constantly needed on the job to protect the
public. Many law enforcement peace officers, including those
who work for the Departments of Fish and Game, Parks and
Recreation, Forestry and Fire Protection, Alcoholic Beverages,
Motor Vehicles, and State Fire Marshals, as well as the
community college and school district police departments, are
still not exempt from jury duty.
AB 1708
Page 4
In the early 1990's, the Legislature recommenced the creation
of new "carve outs" from jury service for specified peace
officers. An exemption for specified peace officers and CHP
officers from civil and criminal matters was created in 1992
and an exemption for University of California police officers
and members of the Department of Corrections Law Enforcement
Liaison Unit was added in 1994. In 2001, SB 303 (Torlakson),
Chapter 55, Statutes of 2001, created a new public safety
officer "carve out" that exempts San Francisco Bay Area Rapid
Transit District police from jury service in both civil and
criminal matters.
3)Critical Public Safety Function : The public policy reason for
re-establishing these jury service exemptions after the
Legislature spent years in the 1980's eliminating them was
that various types of peace officers had critical public
safety functions, and they needed to constantly be on the job
to protect the public. Thus, efforts to exempt public safety
personnel not considered to meet this "critical public safety
function" exemption test have sometimes been unsuccessful in
the Legislature. For example, in 1997, the Senate Judiciary
Committee rejected AB 316 (Morrissey), which would have
exempted Los Angeles County local park rangers, safety police
and security officers from the list of persons who may be
selected for jury service. During the 2001-02 Legislative
Session, AB 1970 (Matthews), which is similar to this bill,
exempted parole officers, probation officers, and correctional
officers who are peace officers from jury panels. AB 1970
died in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
4)California Rules of Court Regarding Hardships : CRC 860(b)
defines general principles governing the granting of excuses.
CRC 860(c) requires the juror seeking to be excused to state
facts specifying the hardship and why the hardship cannot be
avoided by a deferral of service. CRC 860(d) provides in
detail the bases on which a hardship excuse may be granted.
One excuse provided in CRC 860(d)(6) states that if the juror
is immediately needed for the protection of public health and
safety, it qualifies as an undue hardship. A peace officer
who is not specifically exempt in CCP Section 219 may request
to be excused from jury duty on the basis of undue hardship
because he or she is immediately needed in a critical public
safety function. While an important part of the public safety
AB 1708
Page 5
system, it is unclear if each peace officer employed as with a
county, city or district harbor or port police is always
needed to fulfill a critical public safety function which
justifies a blanket exemption from jury duty. If based on the
particular circumstances (e.g., the timing of the jury duty,
staffing in the peace officer's agency, etc.), these peace
officers can be excused from jury duty on a case-by-case
basis.
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.
5)Argument in Support : According to the Chief Probation
Officers of California , "Currently sheriffs, police, CHP, San
Francisco BART police, and UC and CSU police are exempted from
jury duty. AB 1708 would similarly exempt probation officers
from jury duty in?criminal matters.
"Probation officers are responsible for critical public safety
services including supervising offenders on Post Release
Community Supervision (PRCS), Mandatory Supervision (MS), and
probation. Pulling these officers away from their duties can
significantly impact an agency's ability to effectively manage
and administer programs and supervision. Further, peace
officers are rarely selected to serve on juries, particularly
in criminal cases, and the time spent reporting to jury duty
is critical time away from their public safety duties.
AB 1708
Page 6
"As an arm of the court, we can be in conflict as we prepare
probation reports make recommendations to the bench. This
role puts officers in a position where the defendant in a
criminal trial could potentially be under their jurisdiction,
creating a public safety to the officers. It is imperative
that officers are not put in a situation whereby they are
sharing personal information as a part of jury selection,
especially in light if their role in the criminal justice
system supervising offenders."
6)Argument in Opposition: According to the California District
Attorneys Association , "California Rules of Court, Rule
2.1008, already provides a mechanism by which a potential
juror may be excused, if he or she is able to demonstrate that
jury service would pose an undue hardship. Rule 2.1008(d)(6)
specifically notes that an excuse may be granted if "[t]he
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." This process is made even easier by the fact that
most, if not all, courts allow an individual to submit an
excuse online. Courts are constitutionally obligated to
provide jury pools that are representative of the community.
This becomes more difficult as more groups are granted
categorical exemptions from jury service. Because existing
law and rules of court already allow these individuals to
request an excuse on a case-by-case basis, this bill
needlessly complicates trial court operations."
7)Prior Legislation :
a) AB 1993 (Nakanishi), of the 2005- 2006 Legislative
Session, would have exempted active nurses who work at
least 20 hours per week in directed patient care services
from jury service in criminal and civil matters. This bill
was never heard in the Assembly Judiciary Committee.
b) AB 270 (Bates), of the 2003-2004 Legislative Session,
would have exempted harbor and port police from jury
service in criminal and civil matters. Failed in the
Senate Public Safety Committee.
AB 1708
Page 7
c) AB 1978 (Haynes), of the 2003-2004 Legislative Session,
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. Failed passage in
Assembly Judiciary Committee.
d) AB 2253 (Mountjoy), of the 2003-2004 Legislative
Session, 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 passage in Assembly
Judiciary Committee.
e) AB 2271 (Parra), of the 2003-2004 Legislative Session,
would have prohibited correctional officers employed by the
Department of Corrections from being selected for voir dire
in civil or criminal matters. Failed passage in the Senate
Public Safety Committee.
f) AB 513 (Matthews), Chapter 353, Statues of 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.
g) AB 1660 (Negrete McLeod), of the 2001-2002 Legislative
Session, 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.
Failed passage in Assembly Judiciary Committee.
h) AB 1970 (Matthews), of the 2001-2002 Legislative
Session, sought to add parole, probation and correctional
peace officers to those exempted from jury service. Failed
passage in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
i) SB 303 (Torlakson), Chapter 55, Statutes of 2001,
exempts San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
police, as specified, from voir dire in civil and criminal
matters.
AB 1708
Page 8
j) AB 1814 (Lempert), Chapter 266, Statues of 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.
aa) AB 2819 (Cardoza), of the 1999-2000 Legislative Session,
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. Failed passage in Assembly
Judiciary Committee.
bb) SB 801 (Poochigian), of the 1999-2000 Legislative
Session, would have exempted an active judge of a court of
record from jury service, as specified. Failed in the
Senate Judiciary Committee.
cc) SB 1864 (Mountjoy), of the 1999-2000 Legislative
Session, 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.
dd) AB 316 (Morrissey), of the 1997-1998 Legislative
Session, 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
AB 1708
Page 9
Judiciary Committee.
ee) AB 2608 (Wildman), of the 1997-1998 Legislative Session,
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. Failed in the Senate Appropriations
Committee.
ff) SB 2066 (Rogers), Chapter 742, Statutes of 1994, grants
specific exemptions for both California State University
campus police and the Law Enforcement Liaison Unit of the
Department of Corrections.
gg) AB 2603 (Napolitano), of the 1993-1994 Legislative
Session 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. Failed in Assembly Judiciary Committee.
hh) AB 2577 (Wright), Chapter 324, Statutes of 1992, grants
specific exemptions for California Highway Patrol Officers.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Correctional Peace Officers Association
California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association
Chief Probation Officers of California
L.A. County Probation Officers Union
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
Opposition
California District Attorneys Association
California Judges Association
Judicial Council of California
Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety
AB 1708
Page 10
Analysis Prepared by : Gabriel Caswell / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744