BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 794|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 794
Author: Evans (D)
Amended: 1/21/14
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 5-1, 1/14/14
AYES: Hancock, De Le�n, Liu, Mitchell, Steinberg
NOES: Knight
NO VOTE RECORDED: Anderson
SUBJECT : Juries: criminal trials: peremptory challenges
SOURCE : California Judges Association
DIGEST : This bill, until January 1, 2017, reduces the number
of peremptory challenges the prosecution and defense get in
misdemeanor trials.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1.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.
2.Specifies 20 peremptory challenges per party in criminal
matters when the offenses charged are punishable with death,
CONTINUED
SB 794
Page
2
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.
3.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.
This bill:
1.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.
2.Provides that 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.
3.Sunsets the provisions of this bill January 1, 2017.
Background
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 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
SB 794
Page
3
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local:
No
SUPPORT : (Verified 1/22/14)
California Judges Association (source)
Contra Costa Superior Court
Fresno County Superior Court
Glenn County Superior Court
Judicial Council
Kern County Superior Court
Kings County Superior Court
Lake County Superior Court
Lassen County Superior Court
Orange County Superior Court
Plumas Superior Court
Riverside County Superior Court
San Benito County Superior Court
San Bernardino Superior Court
San Francisco Superior Court
Santa Clara County Superior Court
SB 794
Page
4
Santa Cruz Superior Court
Shasta County Superior Court
Solano County Superior Court
Tulare County Superior Court
OPPOSITION : (Verified 1/22/14)
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California District Attorneys Association
California Public Defenders Association
Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : 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:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Shorter trials: Fewer peremptory challenges will mean
shorter jury selection and thus shorter trials, allowing
judges and overburdened staff to handle more matters.
4. 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.
SB 794
Page
5
5. 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
million and $60 million annually.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : 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, Chapter 192,
Statutes of 2000). 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 794
Page
6
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 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.
JG:e 1/22/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****