BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair S
2013-2014 Regular Session B
7
9
4
SB 794 (Evans)
As Amended April 8, 2013
Hearing date: January 14, 2014
Code of Civil Procedure
MK:mc
JURIES: CRIMINAL TRIALS:
PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES
HISTORY
Source: California Judges Association
Prior Legislation: AB 1557 (Feuer) - 2007, died on Assembly
Floor Inactive File
AB 886 (Morrow) - 1997-98,
never heard by Assembly Judiciary
AB 2003 (Goldsmith) - 1996, failed Assembly
Floor
AB 2060 (Bowen) - 1996, never heard by
Assembly Judiciary
Support: Judicial Council; Santa Clara County Superior Court;
Fresno County Superior Court; Plumas Superior Court;
Lassen County Superior Court; Santa Cruz Superior
Court; Riverside County Superior Court; San Benito
County Superior Court; Kern County Superior Court;
Shasta County Superior Court, Orange County Superior
Court; Kings County Superior Court; Solano County
Superior Court; San Bernardino Superior Court; Glenn
County Superior Court; Lake County Superior Court;
(More)
SB 794 (Evans)
Page 2
Tulare County Superior Court; Contra Costa Superior
Court; San Francisco Superior Court
Opposition:California District Attorneys Association; California
Public Defenders Association; Taxpayers for Improving
Public Safety; California Attorneys for Criminal
Justice
KEY ISSUES
SHOULD THE NUMBER OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES FOR A MISDEMEANOR
PUNISHABLE BETWEEN 90 DAYS AND ONE YEAR BE REDUCED FROM 10 TO 5, AND
THE NUMBER OF EXTRA PEREMPTORIES WHEN DEFENDANTS ARE TRIED JOINTLY
BE REDUCED FROM 5 TO 2?
SHOULD THE NUMBER OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES IN A MISDEMEANOR
PUNISHABLE BY 90 DAYS OR LESS BE REDUCED FROM 6 TO 5, AND THE NUMBER
OF EXTRA PEREMPTORIES WHEN DEFENDANTS ARE TRIED JOINTLY BE REDUCED
FROM 4 TO 2?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to reduce the number of peremptory
challenges the prosecution and defense get in misdemeanor
trials.
Existing law permits challenges to jurors under the following
provisions:
A want of any of the qualifications prescribed by this
code to render a person competent as a juror.
The existence of any incapacity which satisfies the
court that the challenged person is incapable of performing
the duties of a juror in the particular action without
prejudice to the substantial rights of the challenging
party. (Code of Civil Procedure � 228.)
(More)
SB 794 (Evans)
Page 3
A peremptory challenge exercised by a party to the
action. (Code of Civil Procedure
� 225(b).)
Existing law specifies a challenge for cause based upon bias may
be taken for one or more of the following causes:
Consanguinity or affinity within the fourth degree to
any party or to any alleged witness or victim in the case
at bar.
Having the following relationships with a party: parent,
spouse, child, guardian, ward, conservator, employer,
employee, landlord, tenant, debtor, creditor, business
partners, surety, attorney, and client.
Having served or participated as a juror, witness, or
participant in previous litigation involving one of the
parties.
Having an interest in the outcome of the event or
action.
Having an unqualified opinion or belief as to the merits
of the action founded on knowledge of its material facts or
of some of them.
The existence of a state of mind in the juror evincing
enmity against, or bias towards, either party.
That the juror is party to an action pending in the
court for which he or she is drawn and which action is set
for trial before the panel of which the juror is a member.
If the offense charged is punishable with death, the
entertaining of such conscientious opinions as would
preclude the juror finding the defendant guilty, in which
case the juror may neither be permitted nor compelled to
serve. (Code of Civil Procedure � 229.)
(More)
SB 794 (Evans)
Page 4
Existing law permits each party (prosecution and defense) in
criminal cases 10 peremptory challenges. There are an
additional five peremptory challenges in criminal matters to
each defendant and five additional challenges, per defendant, to
the prosecution when defendants are jointly charged. (Code of
Civil Procedure � 231(a).)
Existing law specifies 20 peremptory challenges per party in
criminal matters when the offenses charged are punishable with
death, or life in prison. There are an additional five
peremptory challenges in criminal matters to each defendant and
five additional challenges, per defendant, to the prosecution
when defendants are jointly charged. (Code of Civil Procedure �
231(a).)
Existing law allows parties in criminal matters punishable with
a maximum term of imprisonment of 90 days or less six peremptory
challenges each. When two or more defendants are jointly tried,
their challenges shall be exercised jointly, but each defendant
shall be also entitled to two additional challenges which may be
exercised separately, and the state shall also be entitled to
additional challenges equal to the number of all the additional
separate challenges allowed to the defendants. (Code of Civil
Procedure � 231(b).)
This bill provides that in any criminal case where the offense
is punishable with a maximum term of imprisonment of one year or
less, the defendant is entitled to five preemptory challenges.
If two or more defendants are jointly tried each defendant shall
also be entitled to two additional challenges which may be
exercised separately, and the state shall also be entitled to
additional challenges equal to the number of all the additional
separate challenges allowed the defendants.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation
relating to conditions of confinement. On May 23, 2011, the
(More)
SB 794 (Evans)
Page 5
United States Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity within two
years from the date of its ruling, subject to the right of the
state to seek modifications in appropriate circumstances.
Beginning in early 2007, Senate leadership initiated a policy to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate the
prison overcrowding crisis through new or expanded felony
prosecutions. Under the resulting policy, known as "ROCA"
(which stands for "Receivership/ Overcrowding Crisis
Aggravation"), the Committee held measures that created a new
felony, expanded the scope or penalty of an existing felony, or
otherwise increased the application of a felony in a manner
which could exacerbate the prison overcrowding crisis. Under
these principles, ROCA was applied as a content-neutral,
provisional measure necessary to ensure that the Legislature did
not erode progress towards reducing prison overcrowding by
passing legislation, which would increase the prison population.
In January of 2013, just over a year after the enactment of the
historic Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, the State of
California filed court documents seeking to vacate or modify the
federal court order requiring the state to reduce its prison
population to 137.5 percent of design capacity. The State
submitted that the, ". . . population in the State's 33 prisons
has been reduced by over 24,000 inmates since October 2011 when
public safety realignment went into effect, by more than 36,000
inmates compared to the 2008 population . . . , and by nearly
42,000 inmates since 2006 . . . ." Plaintiffs opposed the
state's motion, arguing that, "California prisons, which
currently average 150% of capacity, and reach as high as 185% of
capacity at one prison, continue to deliver health care that is
constitutionally deficient." In an order dated January 29,
2013, the federal court granted the state a six-month extension
to achieve the 137.5 % prisoner population cap by December 31,
2013.
The Three-Judge Court then ordered, on April 11, 2013, the state
of California to "immediately take all steps necessary to comply
(More)
SB 794 (Evans)
Page 6
with this Court's . . . Order . . . requiring defendants to
reduce overall prison population to 137.5% design capacity by
December 31, 2013." On September 16, 2013, the State asked the
Court to extend that deadline to December 31, 2016. In
response, the Court extended the deadline first to January 27,
2014 and then February 24, 2014, and ordered the parties to
enter into a meet-and-confer process to "explore how defendants
can comply with this Court's June 20, 2013 Order, including
means and dates by which such compliance can be expedited or
accomplished and how this Court can ensure a durable solution to
the prison crowding problem."
As of December 4, 2013, California's 33 prisons were at 146.2
percent capacity, with 119,258 inmates.
The ongoing prison overcrowding litigation indicates that prison
capacity and related issues concerning conditions of confinement
remain unresolved. While real gains in reducing the prison
population have been made, even greater reductions may be
required to meet the orders of the federal court. Therefore,
the Committee's consideration of ROCA bills -bills that may
impact the prison population - will be informed by the following
questions:
Whether a measure erodes realignment and impacts the
prison population;
Whether a measure addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a bill corrects a constitutional infirmity or
legislative drafting error;
Whether a measure proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy; and,
Whether a bill addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
(More)
SB 794 (Evans)
Page 7
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
SB 794 seeks to increase efficiency in the jury
selection process and to potentially save the state
millions of dollars by reducing the number of
peremptory challenges allotted to both the prosecution
and the defense.
Current law requires that in criminal cases, if the
offense charged is punishable by death, or with
imprisonment in state prison for life, the defense and
the prosecution are entitled to 20 peremptory
challenges. Additionally, under current law, subject
to exceptions, the defense and the prosecution are each
entitled to 10 peremptory challenges in criminal
misdemeanor cases. The number of peremptory challenges
mandated under California law consistently ranks among
the highest in the country in all categories. In
misdemeanor cases, the majority of states allot half
the amount of those required in California.
SB 794 would reduce the number of peremptory challenges
allotted to both the prosecution and the defense, in
misdemeanor cases, from 10 to 5.
2. The Jury Selection Process
The current jury selection process permits the parties to remove
jurors from the panel in a criminal case by exercising both
challenges for "cause" and "peremptory" challenges. These
challenges are made during the voir dire phase of the trial
during which the court, with the assistance of the attorneys,
inquires of the prospective jurors to determine the suitability
of individuals to render a fair judgment about the facts of the
case. At the commencement of voir dire, the jurors are asked to
reveal any facts which may show they have a disqualification
(such as hearing loss) or a relationship with one of the parties
(More)
SB 794 (Evans)
Page 8
or witnesses. Some of these facts (such as employment by one of
the parties) may amount to an "implied" bias which causes the
juror to be excused from service. Other facts (such as having
read about the case in the newspapers) may lead to questioning
of the juror to establish whether an actual bias exists. A
party usually demonstrates that a juror has an actual bias by
eliciting views which show the juror has prejudged some element
of the case.
After any jurors have been removed from the panel for
disqualification and bias, the parties may remove jurors without
giving any reason by exercising peremptory challenges. In
general, the number of peremptory challenges available to each
side is:
20 in capital and life imprisonment cases;
10 in criminal cases where the sentence may exceed 90
days in jail;
6 in criminal cases with sentences less than 90 days in
jail; and
6 in civil cases.
In addition, if one or more defendant is tried, the peremptory
challenges shall be exercised jointly but each individual
defendant is given five additional challenges or four additional
challenges if the maximum term is less than 90 days, and the
prosecutor is entitled to a proportional number of challenges.
This bill would change the number of peremptory challenges in
misdemeanors punishable by one year or less than five with an
additional two per defendant in cases where two or more
defendants are tried together.
3. History of Peremptory Challenges
Peremptory challenges to jurors have been part of the civil law
of California since 1851 and were codified in the original Field
Codes in 1872. Their previous history in England dates back to
at least the Fifteenth Century when persons charged with
felonies were entitled to 35 peremptory challenges to members of
(More)
SB 794 (Evans)
Page 9
the jury panel. Peremptory challenges have permeated other
nations which have based their systems of justice on English
Common Law. Today, nations with roots in English law, such as
Australia, New Zealand, and Northern Ireland, continue to
utilize peremptory challenges in jury selection. In 1986, the
United States Supreme Court, in Batson v. Kentucky (1985) 471
U.S. 1052, 85 L. Ed. 2d 476, 105 S. Ct. 2111, recognized that
the peremptory challenge could be a vehicle for discrimination.
Subsequent cases have sought, with some difficulty, to define
the limits of inquiry into the motives of the parties in the
exercise of challenges which might be based on race or gender.
In California, under Civil Code Section 231.5, a party may not
excuse a juror with a peremptory challenge based on race, color,
religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation or similar
grounds. If questioned, the attorney who exercised the
potentially discriminatory challenge must provide the court with
a lawful and neutral reason for the use of the challenge.
4. Misdemeanors Included in This Bill
The types of cases included in this bill are comparatively
serious in nature compared to most civil matters. First, unlike
civil matters, the prosecution must convince a unanimous jury by
the highest legal standard under the law. Second, these cases
involve matters which can result in imprisonment for up to one
year. If multiple offenses are charged, a defendant could
potentially be sentenced to consecutive multi-year stints. In
addition to their liberty interests, criminal defendants must
also carry a criminal record. Misdemeanors, such as vehicular
manslaughter, DUI, assault, battery, molestation and domestic
violence would be covered under this legislation.
5. Additional Cost and Strain Upon the System/Danger of Retrials
Prosecuting attorneys have the burden of proving to a unanimous
jury that a defendant is guilty of the charges beyond a
reasonable doubt. When a criminal jury cannot reach a unanimous
verdict, the prosecution may retry the case and attempt to
achieve a unanimous verdict with another trial. There is no
(More)
SB 794 (Evans)
Page 10
limit to the number of trials the prosecution can bring. Every
retrial strains the system and requires the cost of a trial. By
reducing peremptory challenges available to the prosecution, the
likelihood of a non-unanimous jury increases because the
prosecutor cannot use their instincts to remove a juror the
prosecutor believes may prejudice the jury. Each non-unanimous
verdict increases the chances of costly retrials.
6. Peremptory Challenges as the Only Method of Eliminating
Suspected Bias, Suspected Incompetence, or Suspected
Incapacity
Under the present system, a potential juror may be excused for
cause under a number of specified circumstances (generally
incompetence, incapacity, and apparent implied or actual bias).
One common use of peremptory challenges is to remove potential
jurors who meet the legal definition of unbiased, but who the
attorney suspects may be biased or incompetent.
a. Suspected Bias
In general, many jurors come into the jury selection
process with certain biases. Studies have shown that
jury bias is particularly prevalent in criminal cases.
In fact, this is one of the reasons we have the
presumption of innocence. The jury process is set up to
divulge and eliminate these biases through education in
basic legal principles such as the presumption of
innocence, right against self-incrimination and the
burden or proof. Some jurors begin their jury service
with the belief that a defendant must prove his or her
innocence. Other jurors may expressly state that they
believe that it is incumbent upon the defendant to
testify in order to obtain a not guilty verdict. Still
others commonly state when questioned that they would
vote guilty at the beginning of the case, despite the
fact that the defendant is presumed innocent. Upon
questioning, if the juror simply states that they can
fairly apply the instructions of the judge they meet the
legal standard of unbiased and thus won't be dismissed
(More)
SB 794 (Evans)
Page 11
for cause although an attorney may wish to dismiss the
juror with a peremptory challenge.
b. Suspected Incompetence
Jurors are expected to have basic competence in order to
adequately judge the facts and circumstances of a case.
For example, jurors are expected to have a basic
understanding of the English language. Minimal ability
to understand the language is generally accepted. One
potential use of a peremptory challenge would be to
remove a juror who can answer and communicate in yes and
no responses, but who may not have the ability to read
and comprehend the jury instructions. When a case
depends on a complex understanding of the jury
instructions, a juror who is less literate may not be
sufficiently competent to decide the facts of the case.
While this juror is not removable for cause, an attorney
may choose to exercise a peremptory challenge.
c. Suspected Incapacity
Jurors are expected to be physically and mentally capable
of service. For example, a juror who is so physically
infirm that they are unable to sit and comprehend the
testimony and courtroom presentation may not be capable
of serving on a jury.
In instances where the judge determines that the
potential juror's health is legally sufficient, an
attorney may choose to remove said juror through use of a
peremptory challenge. The attorney may feel that the
potential juror's infirmity may be so distracting that
they could not devote sufficient attention to the
determination of the facts of the case.
7. Argument in Support
(More)
SB 794 (Evans)
Page 12
The sponsor believes that reducing the number of peremptory
challenges will save the courts money without reducing justice.
Specifically, the California Judges Association states that this
bill is important for the following reasons:
Cost savings: While savings are difficult to quantify
precisely, reducing peremptory challenges by one-half will
greatly reduce the number of jurors who must be called for
service. This is because sufficient potential jurors must
be present in case the full numbers of potential jurors are
dismissed. Fewer juror summons' result in less paper, less
postage, fewer jurors to pursue for not appearing, less
physical infrastructure to hold potential jurors, etc.
Personnel efficiencies: Fewer people appearing for jury
service will permit personnel resources involved in calling
jurors for service to be redeployed in areas where layoffs
and furloughs have severely hampered court operations.
Shorter trials: Fewer peremptory challenges will mean
shorter jury selection and thus shorter trials, allowing
judges and overburdened staff to handle more matters.
(More)
SB 794 (Evans)
Page 13
Improved juror satisfaction: Judges report that
potential jurors frequently express frustration when they
watch otherwise eligible jurors be dismissed for no
apparent reason. The willingness of potential jurors to
serve is critical to the constitutional right to jury, and
judges are convinced that this simple change will help
improve juror attitudes.
More productive employees in work force: Calling fewer
potential jurors means that more people will be working
productively in their jobs, benefitting private businesses
which we ask to pay for jury service and public agencies as
well. In the public sector, for example, having police
officers in court for shorter periods of time while jury
selection unfolds will permit officers to spend more
productive time in police work. The Judicial Council
estimates that the one change proposed in SB 794 could
result in community and employer savings of between $30
(More)
SB 794 (Evans)
Page 14
million and $60 million annually.
8. Arguments in Opposition
The California District Attorneys Association opposes this bill
stating:
The peremptory challenge has been a lasting feature of
legal systems for hundreds of years. The purpose of
the peremptory challenge is to help ensure the
selection of a fair and unbiased jury as well as a jury
that represents a broad cross-section of the affected
community. A reduction in the number of peremptory
challenges available to both prosecutors and defense
counsel increases the difficulty in meeting these
important guarantees of due process.
We understand that the judicial system has been plagued
by budget cuts and we appreciate efforts to identify
efficiencies that will soften the blow of those
spending reductions. That said, we cannot support the
change contemplated by SB 794 because it jeopardizes
just outcomes.
(More)
The California Public Defenders Association opposes this bill
stating:
Prior to the passage of Proposition 115 in 1990, both
attorneys and judges conducted the questioning of
jurors, commonly referred to as "voir dire."
Sections 6 and 7.5 of Proposition 115 repealed then
existing code provisions governing the conduct of voir
dire in criminal cases so that attorney-conducted voir
dire was essentially eliminated unless there was a
showing of good cause. What seemed to be a key
rationale for the changes was that it would achieve
some economy in time. While it is unclear whether this
objective was achieved, what is clear is that the
measure has affected trial counsel's ability in
criminal cases to effectively assess the prospective
jurors' capacity for fairness and the absence of bias.
In 2000, the Legislature realized the excesses of
Proposition 115 and passed
AB 2406 (Migden). AB 2406 amended the Proposition 115
to instead require the court to conduct an initial
examination and thereafter give the counsel for each
party the right to examine, by oral and direct
questioning, any or all of the prospective jurors. But
since AB 2406 did not specify any particular length of
time to be accorded to counsel to conduct their
examination, while some judges accord a reasonable
length of time for the examination of jurors, empirical
evidence suggests that the time accorded for the
examination of jurors in many misdemeanor cases is
still very brief.
SB 749 again attempts yet another assault on the
effective selection of jurors by counsel. As noted in
the Assembly Public Safety Committee analysis of AB
2406 for the hearing on that legislation on April 4,
2000, the authors of that bill noted, among other
(More)
SB 794 (Evans)
Page 16
things, "Judges are not in a position to know the
nuances of a case or case-specific issues related to
juror bias. The attorneys are." Yet, as noted, AB
2406 did not truly restore the right to
attorney-conducted voir dire in a meaningful way,
because time constraints often lead to the perfunctory
acknowledgement of the right sought to be granted by
that legislation.
The fact is, given the contraction of the voir dire
process in California, attorneys in criminal cases are
left with little recourse but to use peremptory
challenges in doubtful situations where a fuller
examination of a prospective juror might have
unquestionably qualified the juror or disqualified the
juror "for cause." Thus a reduction in the number of
peremptory challenges - as proposed by SB 749 - would
work to further erode fairness in our jury system.
Experienced criminal lawyers know that one result of
truncating the juror selection process in the wake of
Proposition 115 has been an increase in the number of
mistrials occasioned by "hung juries," which is really
no time savings at all. As noted by Alexander Hamilton
during the drafting of our fundamental charter, "The
friends and adversaries of the plan of the convention .
. . concur . . . in the value they set upon the trial
by jury; the former regard it as a valuable safeguard
to liberty; the latter represent it as the very
palladium of free government."
***************
SB 794 (Evans)
Page 17