BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
SB 1133 (Anderson)
As Introduced
Hearing Date: May 6, 2014
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
RD
SUBJECT
Juries: Peace Officer Exemption
DESCRIPTION
This bill would exempt certain Department of Fish and Game
employees from jury duty in criminal and civil matters.
BACKGROUND
Prior to 1975, the Code of Civil Procedure exempted 17
occupations from jury service. These included: legislators,
members of Congress, military personnel, peace officers, local
office holders, attorneys, clergy, teachers, doctors, dentists,
merchant seamen, telephone and telegraph operators,
firefighters, railroad employees, faith healers, and cloister
monks and nuns. These exemptions were granted on the general
notion that individuals in these occupations provided a valuable
public service that should not be interrupted by a requirement
of jury service. In 1975, AB 681 (Siegler, Ch. 593, Stats.
1975) repealed those categorical exemptions and replaced them
with a generic provision allowing any person to be excused from
jury duty for undue hardship on themselves or the public. (See
current Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 204(b).)
Subsequently, however, exemptions began to be reinstated for a
number of categories of peace officers. First, a full exemption
from jury duty was re-established for "line" peace
officers-police, sheriffs, CHP-by passage of SB 549 (Wilson, Ch.
748, Stats. 1977), the rationale being that such individuals
were rarely chosen to serve and a vital public resource was
wasted in attendance through the process of jury selection.
(more)
SB 1133 (Anderson)
Page 2 of ?
This exemption was later extended to judges. Then in 1988, a
comprehensive revision of the law relating to juries was enacted
by AB 2617 (Harris, Ch. 1245, Stats. 1988) wherein the exemption
for judges was removed, and the peace officer exemption was
limited to criminal matters only. Again, in 1992, the peace
officer exemption was expanded to include civil cases and, two
years later, an exemption from voir dire in criminal cases was
extended to California State University and University of
California police. Finally, in 2001, an exemption was provided
for Bay Area Rapid Transit District police from jury duty in
civil and criminal matters. (See Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 219 for
current peace officer exemptions.)
Despite the inclusion of these new exemptions from jury service,
throughout the 1990s and over the last decade, numerous other
bills seeking to add new exemptions for other peace officers or
other categories of individuals, including judges, have failed
passage or otherwise died either in various policy committees,
including this Committee. (See Prior Legislation.)
This bill now seeks to provide an exemption for certain
Department of Fish and Game peace officers from jury duty in
both civil and criminal matters.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law provides that the Legislature recognizes that trial
by jury is a cherished constitutional right, and that jury
service is an obligation of citizenship. It is the policy of the
State of California that all persons selected for jury service
shall be selected at random from the population of the area
served by the court; that all qualified persons have an equal
opportunity, in accordance with this chapter, to be considered
for jury service in the state and an obligation to serve as
jurors when summoned for that purpose; and that it is the
responsibility of jury commissioners to manage all jury systems
in an efficient, equitable, and cost-effective manner. (Code
Civ. Proc. Sec. 191.)
Existing law provides that all persons are eligible to be
prospective trial jurors, except the following:
persons who are not citizens of the United States;
persons who are less than 18 years of age;
persons who are not domiciliaries of the State of California,
as specified;
persons who are not residents of the jurisdiction wherein they
SB 1133 (Anderson)
Page 3 of ?
are summoned to serve;
persons who have been convicted of malfeasance in office or a
felony, and whose civil rights have not been restored;
persons who are not possessed of sufficient knowledge of the
English language, provided that no person shall be deemed
incompetent solely because of the loss of sight or hearing in
any degree or other disability which impedes the person's
ability to communicate or which impairs or interferes with the
person's mobility;
persons who are serving as grand or trial jurors in any court
of this state; or
persons who are the subject of conservatorship. (Code Civ.
Proc. Sec. 203(a).)
Existing law prohibits any person from being excluded from
eligibility for jury service in the State of California, for any
reason other than those reasons provided above. (Code Civ. Proc.
Sec. 203(b).)
Existing law prohibits the exemption of any eligible person from
service as a trial juror by reason of occupation, economic
status, or race, national origin, ethnic group identification,
religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, color, genetic
information, or disability, or for any other reason. Existing
law provides that an eligible person may be excused from jury
service only for undue hardship, upon themselves or upon the
public, as defined by the Judicial Council. (Code Civ. Proc.
Sec. 204.)
Existing law prohibits certain peace officers from being
selected for voir dire in both civil and criminal matters,
including: sheriffs, police officers, municipal court marshals,
constables, inspectors and investigators of district attorneys,
California Highway Patrol officers, and San Francisco Bay Area
Rapid Transit District Police Department police, as specified.
(Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 219(b)(1).)
Existing law prohibits specified members of the University of
California Police Department as well as members of the
California State University Police Departments from being
selected for voir dire in criminal matters only. (Code Civ.
Proc. Sec. 219(b)(2).)
Existing law provides that a challenge is an objection made to
the trial jurors that may be taken by any party to the action,
and is of the following classes and types:
SB 1133 (Anderson)
Page 4 of ?
a challenge to the trial jury panel for cause, as specified;
or
a challenge to a prospective juror by either of the following:
o A challenge for cause, for (1) general
disqualification-that the juror is disqualified from
serving in the action on trial, (2) implied bias-as, when
the existence of the facts as ascertained, in judgment of
law disqualifies the juror, or (3) actual bias-the
existence of a state of mind on the part of the juror in
reference to the case, or to any of the parties, which will
prevent the juror from acting with entire impartiality, and
without prejudice to the substantial rights of any party.
o A peremptory challenge to a prospective juror. (Code
Civ. Proc. Sec. 225.)
Existing law specifies that a party may not use a peremptory
challenge to remove a prospective juror on the basis of an
assumption that the prospective juror is biased merely because
of his or her race, color, religion, sex, national origin,
sexual orientation, or similar grounds. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.
231.5.)
Existing case law provides that a defendant's right to trial by
a jury drawn from a representative cross section of the
community, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the federal
Constitution and article I, section 16, of the California
Constitution, is violated when a "cognizable group" within that
community is excluded from jury venire. In order for a group to
be considered cognizable, two requirements must be met: (1) the
group's members must share a common perspective arising from
their life experience in the group; and (2) it must be shown by
the party seeking to prove a violation of the representative
cross section rule that "no other members of the community are
capable of adequately representing the perspective of the group
assertedly excluded." (Rubio v. Superior Court, (1979) 24 Cal
3d 93, 97; see also People v. Garcia (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1269,
1274.)
This bill would exempt from voir dire in both civil and criminal
matters specified law enforcement officers of the Department of
Fish and Game.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
SB 1133 (Anderson)
Page 5 of ?
According to the author:
SB 1133 adds California Department of Fish and Wildlife Law
Enforcement Officers (LEOs) called Wildlife Officers to the
list of LEOs who are exempt from jury service under [Code Civ.
Proc. Sec.] 219.
There are many valid reasons why [Code Civ. Proc. Sec.] 219
exempts most California LEOs from jury service. They are the
same as those reasons why Wildlife Officers should be added to
the exemption.
Wildlife officers very often have subpoenas for their own
cases during the timeframe they are summoned for jury duty
resulting in automatic dismissal during voir dire. Voir dire
is the process by which prospective jurors from a jury pool
are screened to determine capability or possible bias, and
therefore suitability to render an impartial analysis of
evidence and testimony.
Even if no conflict exists with their own case subpoenas,
Wildlife Officers are often dismissed during voir dire by
judges and/or criminal defense attorneys due to perceived bias
toward the prosecution.
Reduces Wildlife Officer patrol days by approximately 245
days at a cost of around $135,000 per the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) budget analyst
estimate.
Wildlife officers often know the judge and/or the
attorneys involved[.]
Lack of exemption for Wildlife Officers increases the
burden on county courts.
The California Fish and Game Wardens' Association (CFGWA), a
co-sponsor of this bill, writes that "CFGWA recognizes the jury
as a critical component of the American legal system. Most
Wildlife Officers have had cases before juries throughout the
course of their careers. If called upon to serve on a jury,
California Wildlife Officers pledge to provide an objective
evaluation of evidence and testimony to render a decision in
accordance with the court's instructions. Our Wildlife Officers
have maintained this pledge throughout our history. However,
Wildlife Officers are consistently dismissed from jury pools
during the voir dire process making SB 1133 necessary to
dramatically increase efficiency for both Wildlife Officers and
the Court system. . . . The California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW) Law Enforcement Division loses 245 patrol days
per year, or about 1.6 personnel years to the voir dire process,
SB 1133 (Anderson)
Page 6 of ?
with the vast majority excused. The cost of 1.6 wildlife officer
personnel years is approximately $135,000 per year."
2. Public policy against categorical exemptions from jury
service
This bill seeks to exempt specified Department of Fish and Game
peace officers from jury duty in both civil and criminal
matters.
Commonly discussed as a citizen's civic duty, jury service
fundamentally functions to "preserve[ ] the democratic element
of the law, as it guards the rights of the parties and ensures
continued acceptance of the laws by all of the people." (Green
v. United States (1958) 356 U.S. 165, 215 (Black, J.,
dissenting). It "affords ordinary citizens a valuable
opportunity to participate in a process of government, an
experience fostering, one hopes, a respect for law." (Duncan v.
Louisiana (1968) 391 U.S. 145, 187 (Harlan, J., dissenting). As
noted by the U.S. Supreme Court, "[i]ndeed, with the exception
of voting, for most citizens the honor and privilege of jury
duty is their most significant opportunity to participate in the
democratic process." (Powers v. Ohio (1991) 499 U.S. 400, 406.)
Under California law, every citizen over 18 years of age is
eligible and qualified to be a prospective juror unless they
fail to meet certain minimal requirements. For example, they
must be a resident of the jurisdiction they are summoned to
serve, be possessed of sufficient knowledge of the English
language, and not be subject to conservatorship. Aside from
these threshold requirements that must be met for a person to be
eligible to serve on a jury, California law prohibits any person
from being excluded from eligibility for jury service. While
otherwise eligible persons could be excused by the courts on a
case-by-case basis for hardship, or be peremptorily challenged
or be challenged for cause (such as for express or implied
bias), California law prohibits the exemption of any eligible
person from service by reason of occupation, economic status, or
race, national origin, ethnic group identification, religion,
age, sex, sexual orientation, color, genetic information, or
disability, or for any other reason.
The proponents of this bill argue that Department of Fish and
Game peace officers are rarely chosen to serve on a jury, and
that the requirement that these officers go through the voir
dire process, only to be excused from service wastes resources.
SB 1133 (Anderson)
Page 7 of ?
They also point to the fact that the Legislature has, over the
years, added exemptions from voir dire for certain other peace
officers. They believe that the same reasons that support
excluding those peace officers supports the exclusion of Fish
and Game officers. (See Comment 1.)
Indeed, under Section 219 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
specified peace officers (including California Highway Patrol
officers and San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
Police officers) are prohibited from being selected for voir
dire in both civil and criminal matters, while others (such as
specified University of California officers) are prohibited from
being selected for voir dire in criminal matters only.
Nonetheless, under current law, many classes of peace officers
are not exempt from voir dire in civil or criminal cases. Those
other categories include: LA County safety police officers,
California Community College police officers, school district
police, municipal utility district security and county water
district security officers, local park rangers, Department of
Justice agents and investigators, Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation investigators, and peace officers employed by
state departments including the Departments of Parks and
Recreation and Forestry and Fire Protection, and Consumer
Affairs.
Arguably, as a matter of public policy, the law should not be
amended to categorically exempt more persons, including other
peace officers. Given the inherent authority of the court and
ability to excuse prospective jurors for various reasons and
that hardship exemptions are sufficient to address the
case-by-case needs of officers, exempting additional officers
would appear to further limit the available jury pool
potentially both to the detriment of defendants in matters who
have a right to having a jury drawn from a representative cross
section of the community, and to the courts that are charged
with drawing those pools. Staff further notes that public
policy in this state supports giving every eligible person equal
opportunity to discharge their civil duty. To this end, even if
the majority of the peace officers that this bill proposes to
exclude from jury service are ordinarily excused from service
during voir dire (either for hardship or based on a peremptory
challenge or challenge for cause), this bill would outright
prohibit persons who may desire to fulfill their civic duty from
participating in this process.
SHOULD THIS COMMITTEE APPROVE POLICY THAT WOULD CATEGORICALLY
SB 1133 (Anderson)
Page 8 of ?
PRECLUDE SOME CITIZENS' RIGHT TO SERVE ON JURIES AND FURTHER
LIMIT THE ABILITY OF COURTS TO DRAW JURY POOLS THAT ADEQUATELY
REPRESENT CROSS SECTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY AS DEMANDED BY THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF DEFENDANTS?
3. Opposition to the bill from Judicial Council and the
California Judges Association
The California Judges Association (CJA), which has consistently
opposed categorical exemptions from jury service, argues in
opposition that: "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."
Moreover, CJA argues that "[e]xisting 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 prospective-juror
community."
Also in opposition to this bill, the Judicial Council of
California writes:
Statutorily exempting specific categories of persons from jury
duty reduces the number of available jurors, makes it more
difficult to select representative juries, and unfairly
increases the burden of jury service on other segments of the
population.
The courts have a constitutional obligation to ensure that
jury pools are representative of the community and that there
are enough prospective jurors in the courthouse each day to
avoid having to dismiss last-day criminal trials for lack of
jurors. More than three million individuals are required as
potential jurors each year in California's courts. Los
Angeles County alone requires 8,000 citizens to report each
day to ensure enough jurors are available for that county's
trials. Categorical exemptions complicate this task,
especially given the policies that are in place to grant an
excuse or make a scheduling accommodation on a case-by-case
basis.
Courts must constantly balance the need to ensure access to
SB 1133 (Anderson)
Page 9 of ?
the justice with the need to respect juror's time. Many
changes in recent years designed specifically to lessen the
burden of jury duty on citizens, renders categorized
exemptions unnecessary. Such changes include creation of a
one day/one trial system statewide, improving the summons
process to allow requests for excuses to be made, and adoption
of a rule of court to ensure that jurors can request
scheduling accommodations without appearing in court.
Categorical exemptions are unnecessary because existing law
and rules of court authorize courts to grant a hardship excuse
in appropriate circumstances and to make scheduling
accommodations without requiring a court appearance. The
Judicial Council specifically adopted a rule pertaining to
service by public safety officers, which provides that when a
prospective juror's services "are immediately needed for the
protection of the public health and safety" that is grounds
constituting undue hardship under California Rules of Court,
rule 2.1008. The Judicial Council believes that while jury
services requires sacrifice on the parts of citizens,
exempting certain classes of individuals on the basis of the
burden it might put on them unfairly increases the burden on
the others.
Support : None Known
Opposition : California Judges Association; Judicial Council
HISTORY
Source : California Fish and Game Wardens Association;
California Fish and Game Wardens Supervisors and Managers
Association
Related Pending Legislation : AB 1708 (Alejo) would exclude
additional peace officers, including 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 voir dire in criminal matters. This bill is
currently in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
Prior Legislation :
SB 1133 (Anderson)
Page 10 of ?
AB 1769 (Galgiani, 2007) would have exempted from voir dire in
criminal matters: members of a community college police
department, as specified, persons employed as a member of a
police department of a school district, as specified, whose
primary duty is law enforcement, and peace officers employed by
a K-12 school district or a community college district who
completed certain training. This bill was vetoed.
AB 1993 (Nakanishi, 2005) would have provided, until January 1,
2010, an eligible person who holds an active license as a
registered nurse and works at least 20 hours per week in direct
patient care services may be excused from jury service. That
bill died in the Assembly Judiciary Committee.
AB 2271 (Parra, 2004) would have exempted correctional officers
employed by the Department of Corrections from voir dire in
civil and criminal matters. This bill died in the Senate Public
Safety Committee.
AB 270 (Bates, 2003) would have exempted harbor and port police,
as specified, from voir dire in civil and criminal mat. That
bill failed passage in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
AB 1970 (Matthews, 2002) would have exempted parole officers,
probation officers, and correctional officers who are peace
officers, as specified, from jury panels sent to courtrooms for
voir dire in civil and criminal matters. That bill died in the
Senate Public Safety Committee.
SB 303 (Torlakson, Ch. 55, Stats. 2001) excluded specified Bay
Area Rapid Transit District officers from voir dire in civil and
criminal matters.
AB 2418 (Migden, Ch. 43, Stats. 2000) added sexual orientation
to the list of reasons upon which existing law prohibits a
person from being exempted from service as a trial juror. That
bill also added a new provision to the Code of Civil Procedure,
Section 231.5, that prohibits a party from using a peremptory
challenge to remove a prospective juror on the basis of an
assumption that the prospective juror is biased merely because
he or she is a member of an identifiable group distinguished on
racial, religious, ethnic, sexual orientation, gender, or
similar grounds.
SB 801 (Poochigian, 2000) would have created an exemption from
SB 1133 (Anderson)
Page 11 of ?
jury duty for judges, excluding temporary judges. That bill
failed passage in this Committee.
AB 316 (Morrissey, 1997) would have exempted local agency park
rangers and Los Angeles County safety police from civil and
criminal jury duty. It also would have exempt state university
police and Department of Corrections Law Enforcement Liaison
officers from civil jury duty, in addition to their exemption
from criminal jury duty. This bill failed passage in this
Committee.
SB 2066 (Rogers, Ch. 742, Stats. 1994) added an exemption for
California State University and University of California police
from voir dire in civil and criminal matters.
AB 2577 (Wright, Ch. 324, Stats. 1992) expanded the exemption
from voir dire in criminal matters for certain peace officers
(sheriffs, police officers, municipal court marshals,
constables, inspectors and investigators of district attorneys,
and California Highway Patrol officers) to civil matters.
AB 2617 (Harris, Ch. 1245, Stats. 1998) enacted an extensive
revision of the law with respect to juries, consolidating
various provisions relative to juries in civil and criminal
causes, and revising provisions relative to the qualifications
of trial jurors, excusal from jury service for hardship, the
required appointment of a jury commissioner in each county, the
selection, compensation, and duties of jury commissioners, the
preparation of juror questionnaires, expanded facilities for
jurors, the summons of prospective jurors, the selection of jury
panels, voir dire, challenges to jurors, and the compensation of
jurors, alternate jurors, and juries of inquest. The bill also
included an exemption for certain peace officers from voir dire
in criminal matters (namely, sheriffs, police officers,
municipal court marshals, constables, inspectors and
investigators of district attorneys, and California Highway
Patrol officers).
**************
SB 1133 (Anderson)
Page 12 of ?