The Trial Jury Selection and Management Act requires one jury commissioner to be appointed by, and serve at the pleasure of, a majority of the judges of the superior court in each county. Existing law requires the jury commissioner to maintain records regarding the selection, qualification, and assignment of prospective jurors, and records that provide a clear audit trail regarding a jurors attendance, jury fees, and mileage.

This bill would require a jury commissioner to develop a form for the purpose of determining if the pool of prospective jurors who appear for jury service accurately represents a cross section of the population of the area served by the court. This bill would require the jury commissioner to use the form solely to collect specified demographic information, and would prohibit using the form to collect personal identifying information or making disclosing the form public. to any person, organization, or agency. The bill would require the jury commissioner to biannually produce a report that aggregates the data collected from the forms, and would require each county court to make these reports public.

The Trial Jury Selection and Management Act requires one jury commissioner to be appointed by, and serve at the pleasure of, a majority of the judges of the superior court in each county. Existing law requires the jury commissioner to maintain records regarding the selection, qualification, and assignment of prospective jurors, and records that provide a clear audit trail regarding a jurors attendance, jury fees, and mileage.

This bill would require a jury commissioner to collect and maintain certain demographic data for all prospective jurors who appear for jury service pursuant to a jury summons. The bill would also require a jury commissioner to collect and maintain the names of prospective jurors who fail to appear after being sent a jury summons and the action, if any, taken by the jury commissioner in response to a prospective jurors failure to appear. The bill would require a litigant, upon request and in support of a motion to quash the venire on in discovery for such a motion, to be provided a copy of a list of all prospective jurors, including the identifying information of all prospective jurors who have previously served as trial jurors. develop a form for the purpose of determining if the pool of prospective jurors who appear for jury service accurately represents a cross section of the population of the area served by the court. This bill would require the jury commissioner to use the form solely to collect specified demographic information, and would prohibit using the form to collect personal identifying information or making the form public. The bill would require the jury commissioner to biannually produce a report that aggregates the data collected from the forms, and would require each county court to make these reports public.

The Trial Jury Selection and Management Act requires one jury commissioner to be appointed by, and serve at the pleasure of, a majority of the judges of the superior court in each county. Existing law requires the jury commissioner to maintain records regarding selection, qualification, and assignment of prospective jurors, and records that provide a clear audit trail regarding a jurors attendance, jury fees, and mileage.

This bill would require a jury commissioner to collect and maintain certain demographic data for all prospective jurors who appear for jury service pursuant to a jury summons. The bill would also require a jury commissioner to collect and maintain the names of prospective jurors who fail to appear after being sent a jury summons and the action, if any, taken by the jury commissioner in response to a prospective jurors failure to appear. The bill would require a litigant, upon request and in support of a motion to quash the venire on in discovery for such a motion, to be provided a copy of a list of all prospective jurors, including the identifying information of all prospective jurors who have previously served as trial jurors.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular Session

SB 576 (Wiener) - Jury commissioners: juror data collections and maintenance

This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.

Bill Summary:

SB 576 would require jury commissioners to collect and maintain demographic data, as specified, from all prospective jurors who appear for jury service, to determine if the pool of prospective jurors accurately represents a cross section of the population of the area served by the court.

Fiscal Impact:

Significant ongoing costs, potentially in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars annually (General Fund), to collect, analyze, and report on hundreds of thousands of questionnaires by all 58 county court systems. One-time minor costs to develop questionnaire.

Background:

Each defendant has a right to a jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community. The cross section requirement functions as a means of ensuring a defendant has access to an impartial jury as required by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 16, of the California Constitution. Under current law, persons shall be selected at random for jury service from sources that are inclusive of a representative cross section of the population of the area served by the court. The law provides that potential sources include, but are not limited to, customer mailing lists, telephone directories, or utility company lists. In addition, current law specifies that when purged of duplicate names, the list of registered voters and the Department of Motor Vehicles’ list of licensed drivers and identification cardholders that reside in the area served by the court are inclusive of a representative cross section of the population. This establishes a presumption, oft-cited by courts when considering challenges to a jury venire, that these lists are by law adequate for protecting defendants’ rights to an impartial jury.

Proposed Law:

This bill would:

• Require a jury commissioner to develop a form, to be provided to each prospective juror when he or she first appears for jury service, for the purpose of determining if the pool of prospective jurors who appear for jury service accurately represents a cross section of the population of the area served by the court.
• Require the jury commissioner to use the form solely to collect specified demographic information.
• Prohibit using the form to collect personal identifying information or disclosing the form to any person, organization, or agency.
• Require the jury commissioner to biannually produce a report that aggregates the data collected from the forms, and require each county court to make these reports public.

-- END --

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair

2017-2018 Regular Session

Bill No: SB 576 (Author:Wiener)

Version: April 6, 2017

Hearing Date: April 18, 2017

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: CK

SUBJECT

Jury commissioners: juror data collections and maintenance

DESCRIPTION

This bill would require jury commissioners to collect and maintain demographic data from all prospective jurors who appear for jury service, including each juror’s race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, and ZIP code of residence. The demographic data shall be collected to determine if the pool of prospective jurors who appear for jury service pursuant to a jury summons accurately represents a cross section of the population of the area served by the court. The data would be collected on a form developed by the jury commissioner. Such a form would not collect any personal identifying information. The data would be collected upon a juror’s arrival to jury duty, along with other information currently collected by the court. All data collected would remain anonymous and would be aggregated by the jury commissioner. The jury commissioner would be required to biannually produce a report presenting the aggregated data, which shall be made available to the public and maintained by each court.

(This analysis reflects author’s amendments to be taken in Committee. These amendments remove the provision of the bill that would have required the jury commissioner to collect and maintain the names of prospective jurors who fail to appear after being sent a jury summons and the action, if any, taken by the jury commissioner in response.)

BACKGROUND

Each defendant has a right to a jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community. The cross section requirement functions as a means of ensuring a defendant has access to an impartial jury as required by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, Section 16, of the California Constitution. Under current law, persons shall be selected at random for jury service from sources that are inclusive of a representative cross section of the population of the area served by the court. The law provides that potential sources include, but are not limited to, customer mailing lists, telephone directories, or utility company lists. In addition, current law specifies that when purged of duplicate names, the list of registered voters and the Department of Motor Vehicles’ list of licensed drivers and identification cardholders that reside in the area served by the court are inclusive of a representative cross section of the population. This establishes a presumption, oft-cited by courts when considering challenges to a jury venire, that these lists are by law adequate for protecting defendants’ rights to an impartial jury.

This presumption was enacted into law in 1988 and has not been amended since. However, there is currently no systematic, state-wide process for collecting demographic data on those responding to jury summons throughout the state. This bill would require jury commissioners to create a form to collect and maintain demographic data from all prospective jurors who appear for jury service, including each juror’s race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, and ZIP code of residence. The quantitative data collected could be used to either bolster the validity of the assumptions underlying current legal presumptions or identify systematic weaknesses in current jury pooling processes that may be of constitutional significance. In fact, this bill would specify that the data shall be collected to determine if the pools of prospective jurors appearing for service, after being summoned from each court’s chosen sources, accurately represent a cross section of the population of the area served by each court.

The data would be collected upon a juror’s arrival to jury duty, along with other information currently collected by the court. In order to ensure anonymity and that the privacy of jurors is not violated, all demographic data would be collected and compiled separate and apart from individualized data kept by jury commissioners. The jury commissioner of each court would be required to produce and make publicly available biannual reports presenting the aggregate demographic data collected.

CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW

Existing case law provides that a defendant has a right to trial by a jury drawn from a representative cross section of the community, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 16, of the California Constitution. (Rubio v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 93, 97; see also People v. Garcia (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1274 & fn.3.)

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 requires that all persons selected for jury service be selected at random, from a source or sources inclusive of a representative cross section of the population of the area served by the court. Sources may include, in addition to other lists, customer mailing lists, telephone directories, or utility company lists. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 197(a).)

Existing law specifies that the list of registered voters and the Department of Motor Vehicles’ list of licensed drivers and identification cardholders resident within the area served by the court are appropriate source lists for selection of jurors. These two lists, when substantially purged of duplicate names, shall be considered inclusive of a representative cross section of the population as required. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 197(b).)

Existing law requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to furnish the jury commissioner of each county with the current list of the names, addresses, and other identifying information of persons residing in the county who are age 18 years or older and who are holders of a current driver's license or identification card, as specified. The conditions under which these lists shall be compiled semiannually shall be determined by the director, consistent with any rules which may be adopted by the Judicial Council. The jury commissioner shall not disclose the information furnished by the Department of Motor Vehicles pursuant to this section to any person, organization, or agency. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 197(c).)

Existing law provides that any prospective trial juror who has been summoned for service, and who fails to attend as directed or to respond to the court or jury commissioner and to be excused from attendance, may be attached and compelled to attend. Following an order to show cause hearing, the court may find the prospective juror in contempt of court, punishable by fine, incarceration, or both, as otherwise provided by law. The court may instead choose to impose reasonable monetary sanctions on a prospective juror who has not been excused after first providing the prospective juror with notice and an opportunity to be heard. The monetary sanctions imposed may not exceed two hundred fifty dollars ($250) for the first violation, seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) for the second violation, and one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) for the third and any subsequent violation. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 209.)

Existing law requires the jury commissioner of each county to maintain records regarding selection, qualification, and assignment of prospective jurors and maintain records providing a clear audit trail regarding a juror's attendance, jury fees, and mileage. All records and papers maintained or compiled by the jury commissioner in connection with the selection or service of a juror shall be preserved for at least three years after the list used in their selection is prepared. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 207.)

This bill would require jury commissioners to develop a single-page, anonymous form to collect a host of demographic data about the jurors, including race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, and ZIP code, for the purpose of determining if the pool of prospective jurors who appear for jury service pursuant to a jury summons accurately represents a cross section of the population of the area served by the court. The form would not collect any personal identifying information.

This bill would require this form to be provided to prospective jurors to fill out when they appear for jury service. This bill would prohibit the forms from being disclosed to any person, organization, or agency. However, the jury commissioner of each court would be required to aggregate the data and biannually produce a report presenting the data. The reports would be publicly available and maintained by each court.

COMMENT

1. Stated need for the bill

According to the author:

Throughout California, Jury Commissioners draw prospective jurors from two lists: the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and the Registrar of Voters (ROV). Although the DMV and ROV lists have been deemed to be race-neutral by the courts, it is not necessarily true that the lists represent a fair cross section of the population. The California Code of Civil Procedure does not require the exclusive use of the DMV and ROV lists and does allow [a] Jury Commissioner to use other lists to summon juries.

DMV and ROV lists are clearly not collected on the basis of race or ethnicity. However, there is currently no data to track the results of the California jury selection process. Jury demographic data must be collected in order to determine if minority populations are underrepresented in jury pools.

This bill would require the collection and retention of anonymous demographic information from the jurors who are summoned for jury service by county Jury Commissioner[s]. Upon a juror’s arrival at each courthouse, all prospective jurors awaiting assignment to a courtroom will be asked to fill out a short one-page demographic form in which they answer questions similar to the demographic information collected by the U.S. Census Bureau. Questions will include the juror’s race, gender, ethnicity, and national origin. Jurors will not be required to write their names on these forms and will only be asked to identify the zip code associated with their place of residence.

2. Quantitative data necessary to assess the constitutionality of existing processes

A jury, by law, must represent a cross section of the population in a community in order to ensure that a defendant is afforded his constitutional right to an impartial jury. This philosophy underpins the foundation of California’s jury system. The courts, through the respective jury commissioners, have an obligation arising from both the United States and California Constitutions to ensure that jury pools are so representative.

The legal presumption that jury pooling from the Department of Motor Vehicles’ list and the list of registered voters is inclusive of a representative cross section of the population was codified in Code of Civil Procedure Section 197 in 1988. In the nearly 30 years since, there have been no amendments to this provision. However, there has also been a dearth of information over that time period examining whether such jury pooling actually results in representative jury venires.

This bill would systematically test the presumption in current law that drawing from the DMV and voter registration lists, as well as other sources used, is inclusive of a representative cross section of the population by collecting quantitative information at the local level.

Writing in support, the Drug Policy Alliance, Californians for Safety and Justice, and the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights state that demographic data on jury pools must be collected “in order to determine if minority populations are underrepresented.”

3. Author amendments

The following author’s amendments are to be taken in Committee.

Author’s amendments:

On page 3, line 5, strike “made available to the public.” and insert “disclosed to any person, organization, or agency.”

On page 3, strike lines 10-13

On page 3, line 22, strike “(d)” and insert “(c)”

On page 3, line 26, strike “(e)” and insert “(d)”

Support: California Immigrant Policy Center; Californians for Safety and Justice; Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights; Drug Policy Alliance; Jeff Adachi, San Francisco Public Defender; Hon. LaDoris Cordell (Ret.)

Opposition: None Known

HISTORY

Source: California Public Defenders Association

Related Pending Legislation: None Known

Prior Legislation: None Known

**************