Juries

Allowing Felons in NY to Serve on Juries

New York state senator Brian Benjamin recently introduced legislation to lift the state's ban on ex-felons serving as jurors.  According to Benjamin, “[i]f a person has completed the sentence for a felony, that person should be considered rehabilitated and given the opportunity to the full rights of citizenship, including the right to serve on a jury.” It appears that this legislation, S00221, may have a decent chance of being enacted.  There is a companion bill in the state Assembly and the senate version was recently passed out of committee despite concerns by both the ABA and the state's Republican minority party.  If S00221 becomes law, NY will become one of the few states that allow felons to serve on juries.  While there has been a big push to restore voting rights to felons, the same cannot be said for sitting on a jury.

 

Arkansas Posed to Pass Jury-Waiver Bill

Both chambers of the Arkansas legislature recently passed Senate Bill 5 which affirms the legality of jury-trial waivers written into lending contracts.  The bill originally targeted all contracts but was narrowed to only apply to lending contracts.  

According to Rep. Bob Ballinger, R-Hindsville a supporter of the bill,

"When we first filed [the bill] it was a lot bigger and broader," Ballinger said. "What this bill did is specifically say that you can waive a jury trial. ... It gives some sort of stability to the individuals, in this case, only the lenders."

The bill now awaits signing by the governor.

Jury Nullification Bill Advances in New Hampshire

Jury Nullification Bill Advances in New Hampshire

Last week the New Hampshire House of Representatives voted 184 to 145 to pass a bill (HB 1270) requiring courts to instruct jurors about juror nullification.  At present, defense attorneys in New Hampshire have the right to tell jurors about nullification.  This bill goes the next step and requires courts to instruct jurors about nullification.  The bill is provided below.

1  Findings.  The legislature finds that the New Hampshire Constitution, Part 1, Article 21 identifies trial by jury to be an inestimable privilege indicating its importance in the application of law and justice.  Furthermore, Part 1, Article 12 identifies a role of the people in approving law; the only location for this consent is the jury.

2  Jury Nullification.  RSA 519:23-a is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

519:23-a  Jury Nullification.  In all criminal proceedings the court shall inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy.  The jury instruction shall be as follows:  "The test you must use is this:  If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the state has proved any one or more of the elements of the crime charged, you must find the defendant not guilty.  If you find that the law does not apply to the proven facts of the case, you must find the defendant not guilty.  However, if you find, that the state has proved all of the elements of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, but you find that based upon the facts of this case a guilty verdict will yield an unjust result, you may find the defendant not guilty."

To read more about the bill see the links below.

Wall Street Journal Blog: Just Say No: Jury Nullification Bill Advances in New Hampshire

Washington Post: Jury nullification instructions coming to New Hampshire?

New Hampshire Public Radio: N.H. Legal Explainer: What is Jury Nullification?

NJ State Bill to Allow Volunteer Jury Service

Last year, New Jersey Assemblyman Craig J. Coughlin introduced legislation (A2949) to allow New Jersey residents to volunteer for jury service.  Here is a nice summary of the bill.

     Under the bill, every county clerk shall annually maintain a list which shall consist of the names of county residents who opt to be listed as persons volunteering to serve as grand or petit jurors for the county for a period of one year from the date of registration.  The list shall be compiled from data submitted by any person seeking to volunteer as a prospective juror, in any form deemed appropriate by the county clerk, which can include paper or electronic submission.  The data submitted shall indicate the name and address of the prospective volunteer juror, the date the year-long commitment shall begin, any restriction as to whether the person is volunteering for grand or petit juror service and shall be signed by the prospective volunteer juror.  This list shall be separate from any other list used for the preparation of the juror source list for the county, and shall be submitted to the Assignment Judge of the county at the same time the county board of elections shall annually submit the list of registered voters of the county to the Assignment Judge.

Despite Criticism New Ill Jury Bill Becomes Law

For background information on the bill go here.

Herald-News: Raising juror pay, reducing juries gets mixed reviews

Chicago Tribune: Jury duty pay increase coming next year

 

Illinois is Closer to Reducing the Number of Civil Jurors from 12 to 6

This week the Illinois House passed SB 3075 which, if signed into law, will reduce the number of civil jurors from 12 to 6. The bill also increases juror pay from $25 a day to $50 a day. The bill was sponsored by Representative Kelly Burke and is supported by the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association.  

 

 

NJ Bill to Allow Volunteer Jurors

New Jersey state Assemblyman Craig Coughlin (D-Middlesex) has introduced a bill (A2949) to create a new pool of potential jurors from volunteers. The relevant portions of the bill can be found below.

1.    N.J.S. 2B:20-2 is amended to read as follows:

     2B:20-2. a. The names of persons eligible for jury service shall be selected from a single juror source list of county residents whose names and addresses shall be obtained from a merger of the following lists:  registered voters, licensed drivers, filers of State gross income tax returns, [and] filers of homestead rebate or credit application forms and a separate, voluntary list of persons available for jury service including but not limited to persons who are retired, or employed part-time, compiled annually by the county clerk of each county.  The county election board, the ounty clerk, the [Division of Motor Vehicles] New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission and the State Division of Taxation shall provide these lists annually to the Assignment Judge of the county.  The Assignment Judge may provide for the merger of additional lists of persons eligible for jury service that may contribute to the breadth of the juror source list.  Merger of the lists of eligible jurors into a single juror source list shall include a reasonable attempt to eliminate duplication of names, except that persons whose names appear on the separate, voluntary list of persons available for jury service shall not be eliminated for duplication, and may appear up to two times in a merged juror source list. 

     b.    The juror source list shall be compiled once a year or more often as directed by the Assignment Judge. 

     c.    The juror source list may be expanded by the Supreme Court as it deems appropriate.  

 

This bill if enacted into law would raise potential constitutional questions with respect to the defendant's 6th Amendment right to a fair-cross section of jurors.

 

CA Bill Would Safeguard Juror's Social Media Username and Password

California has become the first state in the country to introduce legislation to safeguard a juror's social media username and password.  California bill (A.B. 2070) prohibits a court from requiring or requesting a juror or prospective juror to disclose a username or password for the purpose of accessing personal social media or requiring the juror or prospective juror to access personal social media in the presence of the judge, counsel for either party, or any other officer of the court.

AB 2070 introduced earlier this year by State Representative Nora Campos is most likely in response to recent efforts by attorneys to gain greater access to the social media accounts of jurors.  As some may recall, the attorneys representing Jodi Arias filed a motion, which was denied, to obtain the Twitter handles of prospective jurors.  Also, two years ago, a California Appellate Court in Juror #1 v. Superior Court directed a juror to make his Facebook account available to the court.

 

CA Moves Closer to Non-Citizen Jurors

The California Senate paved the way for non-citizen jurors when it recently passed Assembly Bill 1401 by a vote of 25-11. The legislation allows non-citizens to serve on state juries.

Although the idea of non-citizen jurors may seem like a novel concept, it has actually been around for hundreds of years. For example, England, for close to 500 years, (the practice was eventually abolished by the Naturalization Act of 1870) permitted the jury de medietate linguae, or “jury of the half tongue.” In a jury de medietate linguae a non-citizen defendant was allowed the right to request that half of the jury consist of non-citizens.  The practice was used to help non-citizens receive fair treatment under the law. Some have advocated resurrecting the jury de medietate linguae to improve minority representation in the jury box.

In addition to recommending the jury de medietate linguae, defense counsel, representing non-citizen defendants, have repeatedly filed motions requesting that non-citizens be included in the jury array (list of jurors summoned to appear for jury duty).  Generally speaking, judges have ruled against these motions finding that the possible prejudice to the defendant's 6th Amendment Rights is outweighed by the government's substantial interest (understanding the proceedings and commitment to carry out the government's laws) in having only U.S. citizens serve as jurors.

I find these rulings somewhat dubious because being a citizen in and of itself does not ensure that an individual understands the trial proceedings or is committed to following the laws of this country. This is reflected every day in voir dire where many citizens summoned to jury duty regularly state that the defendant must testify or prove his innocence.  These same citizens then go on to routinely ignore the rules about discussing or researching the facts in the case.

AB 1401 does not remove any requirement that jurors understand the English language; it only expands the number of individuals eligible for jury service. This bill also increases the likelihood that those tried for criminal offenses in CA are truly judged by a jury of their peers. In addition, by having non-citizen jurors, we can ensure that those receiving the benefits of living in the U.S. are also fulfilling the civic responsibilities that come with those benefits. This change may also lead U.S. citizens to better appreciate and value the importance of serving on a jury and how such service helps to preserve democracy.

It should also be noted that very few seem bothered by having non-citizens serve in our armed services where they protect this country and safeguard our constitutional principles. However, for some reason, these same individuals cannot be trusted to serve as jurors. Ironically, non-citizen service members can actually serve on military juries if summoned.

Ohio's HB 265 and Giving Prosecutors the Right to Trial by Jury

Apparently, Ohio is one of 21 states that grant the right to request a jury trial solely and exclusively to the defendant.  The other jurisdictions to include the federal government give prosecutors some say in the process.  For example, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23 states that a defendant may only waive a trial by jury with the consent of the prosecution.  This provision has been upheld by the Supreme Court in Patton v. U.S. and Singer v. U.S. 

Recently, Ohio State Rep. Lynn Slaby, a former prosecutor, introduced HB 265. If enacted into law, this bill will allow prosecutors to request a jury trial in any case where the defendant has a similar right. HB 265 proponents, of which there are few outside of the prosecutor's office, like to point to the federal system as the reason why Ohio should change its laws.  One might argue that this rule is necessary on the federal level because federal judges have lifetime tenure.  Thus, if you are a prosecutor with a case involving a gun charge and you don't like how a particular judge deals with gun cases, you might want the option of going to the jury. However, that argument doesn't work as well in a state like Ohio where judges do not have lifetime tenure and regularly face reelection.