Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary

Come on up whenever she's ready. And as she does that, in order for us to complete our agenda, allow everyone equal time. The rule for witness testimony is each side will be allowed two main witnesses each and they'll have up to two minutes each to testify.

Anyone else should state only their name, organization, if any, and their position on the Bill. And as always, want to make sure understands Committee has rules to ensure a fair and efficient hearing. And I'm not going to go over all the rules because I know everyone's going to behave very well and nicely today. Well, I'm not sure about the authors, but everyone else I'm pretty sure. So whenever you're ready, go ahead.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. AB 250 will strengthen protections for survivors of sexual assault and ensure the ability to fully out access the justice system. A sexual assault occurs every 68 seconds. And it is not just women who are affected by sexual violence. It happens to people of every gender, every age, sexual orientation and social class.

Sexual assaults are made worse by organizations that react to such an attack. With retaliatory measures, wrongful termination and a culture of COVID up, this Bill will deliver a clear message that perpetrators and the institutions that enable their abuse will no longer be shielded. The culture of secrecy and protecting abusers needs to end here and now.

AB 250 will clarify that the perpetrator of a sexual assault and an entity or entities that covered up the assault are held accountable for the harm inflicted on survivors. And study after study has shown that perpetrators of sexual assault do not stop at one target. They often feel empowered to repeat such assaults until they are stopped.

AB 250 allows a limited time for survivors to pursue overdue recourse for the trauma they endured because as we all know, it may take years to fully realize the impacts of an assault or gain the confidence to come forward to seek justice. Members by exposing these predators, we prevent them from assaulting and traumatizing more people.

And we present an opportunity for survivors to seek recourse. That means our communities, our families, our neighbors, and the general public will be safer to testify. With me in support are Mya Alexander. Mya is a survivor and a longtime television writer and producer in the entertainment industry. Jessica Stender is the Policy Director and Deputy Legal Director for Equal Rights Advocate. Thank you.

Whenever you're ready.

Hello. My name is Mya Alexander, and I'm a television producer that specializes in celebrity news and biography. I began my career at E Entertainment and have since produced for the likes of Oprah Winfrey, Ava DuVernay, Soledad O'Brien and Sean Diddy Combs. Which is what brings me here today to share my story with you.

In late 2015, I was hired to produce a documentary on a close friend of Mr. Combs who was then a senior Executive at Revolt TV, Mr. Combs Cable Network. Over the course of that production, this Executive used his position to pressure me into what he called business dinners, which were, in reality, unwanted advances and coercion.

Despite being clear that I had no romantic interest, for nine months, I endured relentless sexual harassment from this industry heavyweight who implied that my own connections could dry up if I did not entertain his corporate courtship. After I successfully completed the documentary, his behavior briefly improved and he offered me a freelance position at Revolt.

However, I was never onboarded and never worked at the company office. Instead, I worked remotely out of his home, reporting only to him. I was forced to sign a broad and onerous NDA prohibiting me from speaking about my experiences on two separate occasions.

Under the pretense of business trips, I was flown to work related events, only to be booked without my consent into the same hotel room as this Executive. This is how he sexually assaulted me. Twice. I couldn't report what happened. The only person above him at the company was

Mr. Combs, himself, a man notorious for silencing those who spoke against him. This Executive made sure I knew what Mr. Combs was capable of. So I stayed quiet, quit Revolt, and tried to move on. I tried to bury myself in work, but I wasn't the same producer anymore. I struggled to network, and my career stalled.

Once the pandemic hit and there were no more distractions to hide behind, I fell into a deep depression and was eventually diagnosed with PTSD. Now, with my perpetrator deceased and Mr. Combs finally exposed, I am speaking out. But it took time to process what has happened and to feel safe enough to come forward.

And that is why this Bill is so important. So many women carry their trauma in silence for years, even decades. Not because they don't want justice, but because they don't feel safe seeking it. I urge you to please vote to give women like me our day in court. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for sharing.

Good after. No morning, Mr. Chair. Members. Jessica Stender, on behalf of Equal Rights Advocates. We are a proud sponsor of AB250. For more than 50 years, Equal Rights Advocates has advocated for survivors of sexual assault in schools and workplaces and beyond. We are acutely aware of the challenges that survivors face to achieving justice.

Sexual assault is one of the most traumatic experiences that a person can endure. It is well documented that survivors often need significant time before they can come forward, before they've been able to process what happened to them and take action to try to hold those responsible accountable.

This delay is a result of well documented psychological, social and institutional barriers. Many survivors experience shame, fear of retaliation, and the profound emotional toll of reliving the trauma that they endured. They are also sometimes silenced by powerful institutions, power imbalances, workplace dynamics or intimidation, both implicit or explicit, from the perpetrators themselves, who often hold positions of authority.

In situations where an institution or person attempts to conceal the assault, these barriers are even greater. Survivors not only face the trauma of the assault itself, but also the deliberate suppression of their experience. And in many cases, this is also happening by those who should have protected them.

AB 250 recognizes the unique challenges that survivors face that are exacerbated by efforts to conceal the wrongdoing. And it gives them an opportunity to achieve justice. This also serves the broader public interest.

When survivors come forward, it can expose patterns of abuse, prevent future harm, and create accountability within institutions that will prevent these types of occurrences from happening in the future. This Bill sends a clear message. Individuals who commit sexual violence and those who enable or seek to conceal it will no longer be shielded. And for those reasons, we urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 250? Name organization, organization, if any, in your position on the Bill, please.

Esperanza Ross, on behalf of Victim Policy Institute and support.

Thank you.

Mariko Yoshihara, on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association. Proud co sponsors sponsor urge your support.

Thank you.

Sarah Brennan, on behalf of Valor US in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 250? Anyone in the audience that wants to express their position? Okay, we'll bring it back to the Committee for any. Yes, Madam Vice Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, just a few questions. Good morning and thank you for speaking on a matter that's very traumatic to you and certainly understand that I'm trying to understand the law.

So since I've been on the Judiciary Committee, I think this is the second or third time that a Bill like this has come forward and I guess it's been vetoed by the Governor. As I understand this Bill, it would only now going forward apply to private employees and public employees have been excluded. Why would that be the case?

I'd say in the first place, public employees have a very different system of protections that apply to them in the context of sexual assault. And in fact the existing statute which this Bill would amend excludes public employees. So I think for, I think in General we would agree that public employees.

It would be great to have protections for public employees in this case case as well. But for this particular Bill amending this particular statute, it's limited to the private entities.

So I'm trying to understand what you just said. So public employees have a different mechanism similar to private industry where there are human resources departments and processes within a company to report any violation of ethics and integrity and sexual harassment.

So to jump from an alleged violation decades prior and not have ever reported it to the company's through the company's processes that do protect one's privacy and individual concerns and then decades later then that's now coming to a potential action criminal civil penalties.

I just think there's a big gap before we try to in the immediate term and I understand if victims of sexual harassment certainly don't feel comfortable within that situation. But there are other mechanisms to report.

If you don't want to go to law enforcement immediately, at least report to in the private industry, report to human resources just to get it on record. But to come back now decades later and the perpetrator as well as the employer.

I'm just concerned about the over the overuse of going after alleged crimes that took years and the witnesses aren't there. It's just one person. It's always one voice against another. I'm just concerned with that and the fact that it singles out private employers and not that it would make it right to include public and private. I just think that's a bridge too far for me.

So Assemblymember. So this Bill, AB 250 builds off the previous legislation of AB 277 by Wix which did not include the public sector. So I reran this Bill last year and included and it died in Committee because we identified cost pressures to public agencies.

If the Administration or the Senate appropriations like me to add public entities this Bill, I'm happy to do it. But it's very costly.

Well, and costly to business too. I mean it is costly to all employers. But anyway, I have concerns about that exclusion. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments? I want to thank the author for bringing this forward. And I think to the author's point, oftentimes we do legislation, we sometimes have to narrow it because of the Administration or Senate appropriations, what have you.

It doesn't mean that the original initial intent or broad nature of the Bill is not desired, but getting some progress done and moving it forward, I think is a big win, especially for the victims. And we can always come back and continue to expand to the best of our ability.

And I would just note that, yes, although in the private sector, just like in the public sector, there's hr, what have you. But hr, particularly in the private sector, is there to protect the employer.

And so it's not necessarily a mechanism for fair arbitration of issues or what have you, although certainly tools that are available, there should be exercise. I think that certainly in the terms of a victim having justice, I think it needs to be recognized that that's not the avenue where justice is necessarily going to be achieved.

And to the point that was made, this is amending a code section that currently applies to private entities. So it's amending that particular section, as was mentioned by the author and the witness. So, that being said, again, I want to commend the witness for. For sharing what is an extremely traumatic experience.

And I want to thank the author for continuing her efforts in ensuring that victims have the opportunity to achieve justice. Would you like to close?

How long are we going to wait? How long are we going to wait for the survivors? Weeks, months, even years, to gain the confidence, you know, they want to come forward. And I get frustrated when we keep putting them down.

And for this young lady to have the strength to do this today, there's so many more out there. And so I think that, you know, there's a lot of emotional trauma these women and men and others go through. It takes longer time to find a lawyer, build a case, to help seek justice.

We found too many of our survivors lost the opportunity to file because we needed more time. We needed sufficient time. So with that, I ask you for your. I vote.

Thank you very much. At this time, we'll take quorum. I have roll call for quorum so that we can start to take action on these. These bills. Kara. Here.

[Roll Call]

And so we do have a quorum. Is there a motion on AB 250? We have a motion and a second. And you've closed. And so now we can take the roll call vote on the vote for AB 250. Thank you.

[Roll Call]

All right, that Bill is out and on to. On Appropriations. Oh, we need two more. Oh, my. My bad. Okay, so we'll place that on call and await Members to. To add on.

Great. Thank you very much. And I just want to thank you letting us have our witness here today.

Thank you. Thank you all. We'll get item two. AB373. Assembly Rubio.

All right, so we have AB 373, Assembly Member Rubio. Go ahead and begin whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, for giving me the opportunity to present AB 373. This bill is based on the understanding that non-minor dependents, individuals aged 18 to 21 in California who receive services from the foster care system, are legal adults in all respects of the law and should be granted the same rights in court.

Currently, when counsel is appointed to represent a minor in dependency proceedings, they are expected to advocate for the minor's best interest. Although this law is reasonable for youth under the age of 18, current law applies to legal adults 18 years or older and ignores the Independence and legal adult privileges.

Non-minor dependents do have greater autonomy and the ability to express their wishes about court proceedings, but counsel is still able to substitute their judgment and act according to what is perceived to be in the non-minor dependent's best interest.

AB 373 seeks to give discretion to the non-minor dependents by ensuring the legal rights of non-minor dependents are fully respected by clarifying the responsibility of appointed counsel to represent the expressed wishes of the non-minor. Ultimately, this bill aims to empower individuals who have often been spoken for or disregarded.

Finally, this bill will provide a sense of autonomy, Independence, and adulthood to non-minor dependents, setting them up for success as they transition into full adulthood. With me today in support of this bill is Ann Quirk of the Children's Law Center of California, policy attorney, and foster youth advocate Christopher Hernandez from California Youth Connection. Thank you.

Should I move it or...

Yes. Pull it.

Yeah. Sweet. All right. All right. Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Christopher Hernandez, speaking on behalf of California Youth Connection. I'm here today to speak about the crucial role of attorneys in the foster care system and why youth deserve consistent legal representation that truly fights for their stated and expressed interests.

When a young person enters care, so much is taken out of their control. Where they live, where they go to school, and who they can see. These are life changing decisions and too often you feel like they don't have a real say in what happens to them. That's where an attorney comes in.

But having an attorney on paper is not enough. We need attorneys who are present, who check in regularly, and who actually know what the youth wants wants, not just what the system thinks is best for them. When attorneys don't check in, they can't advocate effectively.

They may not know if a placement is comfortable, if a youth is struggling in school, or if a service they were promised was never provided. Without these regular conversations, how can they represent us? Every youth in foster care deserves an attorney who not only knows their rights, but actively ensures their voice is heard and respected.

This is especially true for non-minor dependents ages 18 to 21 who have a deeper understanding of what's being discussed in the courtroom and the decisions made about their lives. As they navigate the crucial transition to adulthood, they need attorneys who take the time to meet with them, explain their options, and ensure they are actively involved in shaping their own futures. Without that time and guidance, they risk falling through the cracks during one of the most vulnerable periods of their lives.

I have personally experienced what happens when an attorney is engaged and fights for their clients. It can mean the difference between getting placed in a safe apartment or dorm room. It can mean staying in the same school instead of having to transfer multiple times.

It can mean feeling like you have someone in your corner instead of feeling like just another case number. I urge you to support efforts that ensure youth in care, especially non-minor dependents, receive strong, consistent and youth centered legal representation. This is not about legal procedures.

It is about ensuring that youth in care have a true advocate, someone they can trust who will fight for their future. AB 373 is fighting to ensure that non-minor dependents have the space and rights to have their voices heard and stated interests advocated for. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Ann Quirk, policy attorney with Children's Law Center. We are the attorneys for youth in the dependency system in Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Placer Counties. When a child comes into foster care, they are surrounded by adults who begin to make decisions for them and about them, often with having spent very little if any time with the child. So the decisions often center on what the adult thinks is generally best for children and not necessarily what this particular child needs.

As a child's attorney, I am one of those adults. My role is to tell people what my client wants. But additionally, if I don't agree with it, I get to substitute my judgment and argue for what I think is best. As an attorney, that's pretty great. But for the client that can be very frustrating.

They can often feel like your voice is not being heard, especially when it's done by the person who's supposed to be speaking for you. Extended Foster Care is a specialized program. It's specifically for those young adults who turned 18 while still in foster care. It's a voluntary program and the focus is not on protection.

The focus is to provide support and services to those 18, 19, and 20 year old adults as they take on responsibility and Independence. WIC 303 clarifies that the participants are adults. They retain all their legal decision making authority, and they are not in the legal custody of the department. This bill is very simple.

It requires me as their attorney to respect that and not substitute my judgment for theirs. The social workers would still get to express their opinion and the ultimate decision maker is the court. But AB 373 would require me to be like every other attorney and advocate for my client's position. Thank you for your time. I'm happy to answer your questions.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 373? Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 373? We'll bring it back to the committee. Any questions or comments? Assembly Member Bryan? Move the bill. is there... And there's second. Any other questions or comments? Yes. Madam Vice Chair.

I thank you for doing this bill. I understand your motivations. I just want to clarify, just a question. So if the court appointed attorney has a different opinion than the non-minor adult, how is that reconciled? Does the judge get involved in that decision or does the non-minor. The non-adult minor opinion way over the judge's input?

So the judge is the ultimate decision maker in the case, so they get to make their decision.

Okay. So that is considered.

So as their attorney I can just substitute my judgment if I, you know... And again, like, safety and protection is pretty vague. So it depends on what I think and I can just put out my position out there.

Well, I had staff look into this particular case. I guess there was one example of a case and, and where the outcome was not clear. So I didn't know. But the minor... What is it? Non-minor adult's attorney prevailed over the court appointed attorney.

The court appoint... If this, correct me if I'm wrong. The court appointed attorney was recommending a different placement than where the youth, the non-adult minor wanted to go. So I guess my feeling is can both opinions be considered for the protection of the youth?

So as the court, I am the court appointed attorney, and so I have that dual role of both. Like the, I represent the client but get to substitute my judgment for them. And then in addition to that there is also an attorney for the county who is putting out what the county wants to have happen.

So both, both opinions are considered?

Yeah, both the counties and then my. So...

And the social worker also has...

Yeah, the social worker, and then...

So it's a team approach, I guess is better stated.

So just in very simple terms, if the minor wanted to go back to the original neighborhood, that's not, not a good environment for the minor. Would that trump the lawyer's opinions?

No. And, and especially in this situation, we're really specifically focusing on the adults only. We're not changing it for minors.

No, I know the 18 to 21. Or 20 year olds, I guess.

So I, again, I could as their attorney right now say like, I don't think that's best for them to argue for that. And then in addition to that, I mean the other thing about that too is they're adults and so then they just go back and we don't know what happened to them. Right, so...

Right. So there are protections, I guess. Okay. Yeah.

I think ultimately that Extended Foster Care is a great thing, and I'm really happy that these 18, 19, 20 year olds have counsel. But ultimately they're adults. They're not treated as dependents when they're out in the community or the police stop them. They're treated as very independent. Individuals that are considered as adults, are going to have to suffer whatever consequences come their way.

And so their judgment, once they turn 18, just like anyone else that has a lawyer, should be what the lawyer should follow. Now the lawyer can give advice. As a public defender, I had a lot of clients that were 18, 19, 20. I also represented folks that were under 18. Those that were under 18, ultimately, you know, there's, there's different, a different role for the lawyer when they're at that time, they're awarded the court, what have you.

Once they're over 18, I can give all the advice I want, but ultimately the client says no, I want to go to trial, I don't want to go to trial, I don't want to accept probation. These probation terms, I want you to fight, this, that. Ultimately, it's the 18, 19, 20 year old's choice. But in this case, what we're, so we're ensuring that they're treated like an adult but still have that same access to have counsel.

Access and protection, to be honest with you. The protection, I mean because you know, not every attorney gives bad advice. Right. So it's, but also respecting what the non-minor adult wants, I think is the key to this because they're 18, over 18.

You know, my son just turned 18 and I still told him under my roof, you know, but I'm not advocating for something different. It's, I think for me it's about respecting the adulthood but also having the protection so that we're still taking care of them. That's the whole point of them still being in the system is so we can support them through this process.

I've done a lot, I think about 18 foster care bills, and always my frustration is that their dependence on the day before 18 and then the day after, we expected them to know all of these worldly things that adults are supposed to know. Under, right now, they still have the guidance from the attorney and from everyone else to make those decisions, but also giving them the ability to say yes or no to it. And that's what doesn't happen with the children under 18.

And just, I'm sorry. It actually helps the court in this case because then they know that I am stating the client's position. As it is right now, because it's so subjective, they can't really tell if as an attorney I've decided to go along with what my client wants or if I'm just substituting my judgment. And so that way this makes it really clear this is what this young adult wants and they don't have to try to figure out like is.

But then what... I agree with everything you're saying. The young adult should be represented and have his or her voice represented. But is there another attorney's opinion also who differs perhaps? No, that child should not go... That a young adult should not go back into that same area. Is that voice being heard?

And that would be the attorney for the social worker.

Okay.

They, they also are putting their...

okay. That is factored in, that is considered, and then the judge makes that decision on that basis. Okay. All right, thank you.

Assembly Member Harabedian.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the author for bringing this bill on behalf of the non-minor dependents. My only question is, is this exception only applicable for appointed counsel? So in, in the probably rare circumstance when the non-minor dependents have private counsel, is that private counsel allowed to actually speak against the wishes of their client or is that just not something that actually exists? Because I guess my only question about the bill is why aren't we applying this to non-appointed counsel as well?

I mean. Exactly. I think in reality there's very, very few examples of a private counsel actually representing the non-minor dependent. But I just think that that, is if there's a question of actually making the exception, broadly speaking, uniform, my only question would be why isn't it applying to all counsel?

But I think the difference here is a non-dependent minor of the foster care system. Right. And so I think there's very, you know...

Can't imagine there's a circumstance. Yeah.

And I believe it does because what this bill does is take out the language that allows me currently to substitute my judgment. Takes that language.

And you don't, if you weren't... I apologize for jumping in. If you were a private counsel in that circumstance, you wouldn't have that ability to jump in and actually provide your opinion over the client's wishes?

I'm like, I'm a lawyer, so I'm hesitant to...

Of course. Yeah.

Without having done a little legal research. But since I've never been... but I believe it would apply to everyone.

And we can get that information, Assembly Member, and just make sure that we're clear on that. Again, I, I think the important aspect of this is that they're 18 already and let's treat them like adults, you know, afterwards with some protections to make sure that the decisions that are being made still goes to the judge and the judge has the ultimate say so.

And, and, a quick look at, look at it by our chief consultant. It looks like it just refers to counsel and I don't think it, it doesn't specify as a court appointed. And we'll double check that and make sure, as we go forward, that it's clear it applies to all. But it seems like that's the way it's written. Yeah.

Thank you. Any other questions? Comments? All right, well, well, I want to thank you Assembly Member, for bringing this forward, and the Children's Law Center California, California Connection, for recognizing this kind of gap in representation. I think it's important that these young adults have the same rights that other 18 year olds, other adults have when they have counsel that's representing them. So would you like to close?

Thank you. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, could take a roll call vote on AB 373, please.

Motion's do pass to Human Services. [Roll Call]

We'll place that bill on call. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Oh, Assembly Member Alanis was here...

I'll move the consent calendar, Mr. Chair.

Okay, if we have a motion on the consent calendar, please. I have a motion and a second.

Consent includes AB 370, Carrillo. Consent as amended to Appropriations. AB 414, Pellerin. Consent as amended. [Roll Call]

Okay, that bill is out. And we do have a couple Members that were not here for the AB 250 presentation. While we're waiting, why don't we give them the opportunity to add on lift. Oh. Lift the call on AB 250.

[Roll Call]

I will place that back on call. It needs one more vote.

Assembly Member Zbur, I'd be happy to allow you to do your votes right now on the bills you miss so we can lift the call on file item 1, AB 250.

[Roll Call]

Okay, that bill is out. And then item two, AB 373, Rubio.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out. Consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

And I'll just, while we're waiting, I'll let everyone know that in an unusual circumstance in the weeks ahead, there are three different committee hearing days in which we cannot have hearings. One, because the State of Judiciary, two, because of holidays. One was the Spring Recess. One is we're having Cesar Chavez Day on a Monday.

So that Tuesday, we don't have committee hearings, or at least it's been adjusted so we don't have one that week. What that means is without three hearings is that we're going to have a really, really busy hearings remaining. All of them. And so the next hearing we have will not be next Tuesday, but the following Tuesday.

And we'll anticipate starting at 8am because we don't have this room in the afternoon. And so we're going to get to work early and work hard, make sure everyone has the opportunity to present their bills and the witnesses have the chance to... And so. Yeah, but just letting you all know in advance, you and your staffs, will schedulers and all will be informed of it. But just so you'll just start getting mentally prepared. Thank you.

Will the Chair bring donuts?

Don't applaud him. Do not applaud him. Anyway... Yeah, no, no. We. We had nothing to do with for the last 15 minutes. AB 387, Alanis. Whenever you're ready.

Oh, here. You can sit right here.

All right. Sorry about that, guys. Well, good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. First off, I'd like to thank the committee for hearing my bill today and let you know that I will be accepting committee amendments to narrow the bill to only apply to criminal cases. Criminal cases. AB 387 removes probation officers from the jury selection process also known as voir dire.

As we all know, probation officers have a deep and unique involvement in the justice system and work in tandem with the courts to fulfill court orders and ensure those on probation are meeting the requirements. Just to name a couple of them supervising individuals on probation, testifying in court, and there's more that my witness will testify.

Probation officers serve as an arm of the court, for those that didn't know, and are responsible for critical community safety services for both youth and adults. This requires probation officers to spend the day, possibly multiple days in the courthouse waiting to be dismissed.

Pulls probation officers away from their duties impacting their abilities to effectively manage these critical services. Potentially delaying probation officers' probation hearings leaving defendants unsupervised or unaccountable for extended periods. The simple presence of a probation officer as a potential juror may create a perception of bias among defendants, attorneys, even fellow jurors, potentially undermining confidence and fairness of a trial.

In some cases this may directly, they may be directly familiar with the individuals involved in the case. Members, state law already has segmented for law enforcement officers including sheriff's police, Highway Patrol, San Francisco BART, UC and CSU police from being also excluded from voir dire.

If any of the members, if any members of law enforcement community should be exempt, it should be probation officers for the reasons stated. With me today is Chief Steve Jackson with the San Joaquin County Probations Department to testify in support of this bill and provide more details on the unique role probation officers play in our court system.

Yeah, good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. Steve Jackson, and I'm here from San Joaquin County, Chief Probation Officer. I also represent, I'm currently the president of the Chief Probation Officers of California. And I appreciate your comments, Assembly Member. You actually said it very well. So I'll keep mine brief and be available if you have any questions.

So I do believe it's time to exempt probation officers from jury service. To us, it makes perfect sense because of the probation, the role that probation plays throughout the justice system and as an arm of the court. A lot of times we do end up being dismissed from jury pool anyway because of our role in the justice system. And so keeping us eligible is just a wasteful time for the courts. Now, there are some specific roles that we do play with the court that I'll mention briefly.

Pretrial probation is responsible for administering pretrial programs, interviewing defendants, and preparing reports that judges rely on. Sentencing, as the Assembly Member said, we write several reports, updates, violations, supplemental reports, none more important than pre-sentence investigations that we prepare for the court. And lastly, supervision.

We supervise individuals placed on probation, oversee reentry, assist in collaborative courts, provide rehabilitative services, connect clients to do job training and treatment programs, and help ensure those in the justice system get the support they need to succeed in our communities. And again with our youth.

We also oversee our juvenile halls, community supervision, and community programs that focus on rehabilitation and preventing future involvement in the justice system. I'll conclude by saying AB 387 rightly recognizes the critical role probation officers play before, during, and after the court process and ensure we can stay focused on our essential work. For these reasons, we strongly support AB 387 and urge you a yes vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 387? Just name, organization, affiliation, if any, and your position, please.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriffs' Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California in support.

Thank you.

Hello. Ethan Lares-Salinas on behalf of ACLU California Action in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 387? Up to two minutes. Yes.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. Mureed Rasool on behalf of the Judicial Council of California. The Judicial Council must regretfully oppose Assembly Bill 387. While we appreciate the most recent amendments to remove civil cases from the bill, the Council remains in opposition.

The Council has a long standing policy of opposing such categorical exemptions and believes that statutorily exempting specific categories of persons reduces the number of available jurors, makes it more difficult to select representative juries, and unfairly increases the burden of jury service onto other segments of the population. Juries play a significant role in the American justice system.

The committee analysis does an excellent job of outlining the history of the jury system in America and how jurors of different backgrounds and perspectives, through democratic deliberation, can provide justice in an impartial manner. California has had an extensive history when it comes to categorical exemptions based on occupation. Up until 1975, there were 17 different occupations exempted.

This included teachers, doctors, faith healers, clergy, railroad employees, firefighters, and dentists. Then in 1975, the Legislature repealed the list and created a general provision allowing for excusal from jury duty if it would be an undue hardship on the person. Since then, the Legislature has reinstated a limited exemption for specific peace officers. However, in the years since then, there have been numerous attempts to exempt certain other occupations.

You can finish your thought.

And so these occupations included firefighters, nurses, judges, self-employed persons, community college and school district police, as well as probation officers. And so part of the Council's reasoning for opposing the bill is that it becomes difficult to determine what occupations should and should not be exempted. For those reasons, the Council respectfully opposes.

Thank you. Anyone else here in opposition to AB 387? Assembly Member Bryan.

I just want to thank the author for this thoughtful bill. You know, solving problems isn't always easy to do. It involves conversations with all folks involved and making pragmatic sense. This saves taxpayers money, it saves working professionals' time. It doesn't impact access to justice. And I want to thank the committee for their amendments to exempt civil trials. This is good policy, and I move the bill.

Thank you.

There's a second? Assembly Member Harabedian.

I'll second it. And just thank you to the author as well. Quick question for the witness. How, how often, practically, are your members actually selected for juries?

That's a great question. I'll just give my own personal experience. I've been an officer for 28 years in two different counties in California. I've never experienced an officer being selected, although we are called.

Assembly Member Essayli.

Yeah, thank you. So just trying to understand the motive of the bill. Is it to take the burden off the court or is it take the burden off the probation officers?

Actually, I would say it would be both. I know when selecting juries, sitting as a bailiff, going through and seeing all that process, all that time wasted on that is helping cut that down. As far as public safety, making sure that we are getting people the programs that they need. It's also making sure and assuring the probation officer there to help them and monitor them and help them succeed.

Let me ask the probation officer. Now, you're not saying that probation officers are biased so they wouldn't be able to serve on a jury, right?

No, sir.

Okay. So you think you could fairly judge a case and apply the evidence as instructed by prosecutors?

Absolutely. I mean, that's probably part of the argument is our role every day with the court. And I think what's unique from other law enforcement officials that are already on, probation officers are involved throughout the process. And that starts at the time of booking, at pretrial, all the way through the court process and sentencing investigation, and then we supervise those same folks in the community. So there's no bias. It's simply our role. It, we're involved daily with the court process.

Yeah, but so is a prosecutor, so is a judge, so is a court clerk. So a lot of people involved in the justice system and they're not exempt from jury duty. So why should probation officers...

That's a great question.

Let me finish my question. So why should probation officers get an exemption when all the other people are involved in the system don't have an exemption?

I think you look, again, like I said, the totality, you have an officer that makes an arrest and does the investigation and they're done. You have an attorney who represents a client and that's their role. The thing that's different about probation officers is that we're involved throughout and remaining through the process from pretrial to supervision.

It's not like we, you know, just write the pre-sentence investigation and we're done. We do the supervision. But that also includes sitting in courtrooms, preparing reports, involved multiple days during the week during collaborative courts. And so I think you just start to blend. As an arm of the court, we traditionally work at the pleasure of the court. And our role is what defines us differently than someone who's just involved at one step or another.

I think this bill is bad precedence. I talked to the DAs, they're very concerned about the jury pools. Already difficult to find qualified good jurors to serve. Judicial Council, who is an arm of the court, has some serious concerns about this. And I think what really concerns me is the precedence.

Because if we go down this road, today it's probation officers. Tomorrow it's court clerks, and then it's going to be prosecutors and public defenders and judges and probably politicians. Why, you know, we're going to want an exemption because we're involved in crafting the law. So I think it's a citizen's duty. Okay.

I think it is a duty of a citizen to serve as a jury. If we were charged, we all want to have a wide jury pool to pick peers to judge us in a case. So I will be respectfully opposing this. I think it's a bad idea, and I really hope that we don't start going down the road of exempting people from criminal jury trials. So thank you.

Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan.

I have a question for the Chair, if I may. I understood the jurisdiction of this committee when it was civil trials, but given the amendments, it seems like it's no longer in the jurisdiction of the committee and should be solely adjudicated by Public Safety. Can someone explain to me what is in the jurisdiction of the committee in the current bill?

We have primary jurisdiction in the trial, trial attorney management act.

Even in the penal code? Oh, fascinating. I didn't know that. When I saw Penal Code bill, I understood and it changed. I was confused why we were deciding this.

And I didn't know that off top of my head.

Okay. No. That's why we have amazing staff. We all know that. I just went through jury selection for the first time in my life. When you're breastfeeding, you get many years of pass. I will say that is one of the groups that doesn't show up for jury duty. And it was really fascinating to watch.

And I guess one of my concerns here, although I'll be supporting the bill today but wanted to raise this, is the way the jury process works, and you know this and you know this and have seen it many times. There are the for cause individuals that are removed and then there are peremptory challenges that each attorney gets to use at their discretion. And as I, you know, I agree with my colleague here that my guess is defense attorneys are often using their challenges to remove your colleagues.

But this would change the balance of how that works in a way that I don't think is insignificant to remove sort of specific categories of people. And that balance is an important one. They each have the same number and that's meant to sort of create this fair jury trial pool.

And so I do think we need to do this cautiously. And I'm not, I heard you, but I'm not 100% convinced that you know, there aren't additional categories of people who would fall under the same concerns. And so where is that line?

And so, you know, watching a judge do this, and I have to say, to the credit of our court officers, I was incredibly impressed. I'd never seen jury selection myself in a criminal trial. I did it in civil trials. And watching that process I thought was elegant and was...

People were removed for cause that I watched the lawyers do their thing and you saw them ferret out the people they thought were biased to one side or the other, and those folks were removed. And I, I guess I'm concerned that as we remove people from the pool, that process will not work as it is intended. And so we need to be careful in doing this. But I'm happy to vote for the bill today to move it forward so we can continue the conversation. Thank you.

Thank you. I want to thank everyone for the conversation. I want to thank the author for bringing this forward and for the witness testimony. As someone that worked as public defender for 11 years, I've definitely conducted a lot of jury trials from the defense perspective, done a lot of jury selection, and I actually also now serve on the Judicial Council as well. So I may not agree with every, everything that was mentioned by the opposing opinion.

I think there's a big distinction between a probation officer and many of the other professions that were mentioned, including those that do interact with the court on occasion. The witness 100% correct. The probation department oversees every aspect essentially of the criminal justice process from pre-trial, post-trial, and everything in between. And so it's not just a matter of whether the individual will be biased or not. It's, you know, oftentimes when you're a juror, it's, what, you know, there's a lot of things you just don't know that are going on.

A probation officer would have intimate knowledge, including what the penalties would be for whatever charges are being brought, probably more closely than most lawyers would, quite honestly, because that's part of what their work is, is making those recommendations. There's no doubt that I've met many probation officers that think would be entirely fair.

But I think that part of the understanding here is that I think that in many cases, if not most, I think any defense attorney that was skilled would be able to get a for cause challenge approved and at the very least get a peremptory. I'm not doing that. I'm not supporting this to save peremptories for defense attorneys.

I think that it's the time that it takes. As Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan mentioned in watching jury selection, it is a very thorough process for good reason. Someone's liberty is at stake. You want to make sure you have a fair process. And so that being said, I think this would be a, it is a time consuming process.

I think probation officers had a unique knowledge of the process, more so than most people that interact with the criminal justice system. And that's why we narrowed it to the criminal justice system, so that probation officers can still serve on civil juries where they may not have that same in depth knowledge of the process. And so I do appreciate the Assembly Member bringing this forward and for the conversation. And I'm recommending it do pass, an aye vote and a do pass. Would you like to close?

Just going to thank you, Chair, and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

Motion's do pass. [Roll Call]

That bill is out. Thank you. And we're done with our business. I'm going to allow for add ons for Assembly Member Papan and Pacheco. Let's start with consent.

Consent. [Roll Call]

And then we'll move on to item one, AB 250, Aguiar-Curry's bill.

[Roll Call]

And then AB 373, Rubio.

[Roll Call]

I think we're all caught up. Right? All right, we're adjourned. Thank you, everyone.