Bill Text: CA AB1766 | 2015-2016 | Regular Session | Amended

NOTE: There are more recent revisions of this legislation. Read Latest Draft

---

Bill Title: Examination of prospective jurors.

Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 1-0)

Status: (Vetoed) 2016-08-30 - Consideration of Governor's veto pending. [AB1766 Detail]

Download: California-2015-AB1766-Amended.html

---

BILL NUMBER: AB 1766	AMENDED
	BILL TEXT

	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  FEBRUARY 29, 2016

INTRODUCED BY   Assembly Member Mark Stone

                        FEBRUARY 3, 2016

   An act to amend Sections 222.5 and 223 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, relating to jurors.


	LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


   AB 1766, as amended, Mark Stone. Examination of prospective
jurors.
   In civil trials, existing law requires a trial judge to examine
prospective jurors, and, upon completion of the judge's examination,
grants counsel for each party the right to examine, by oral and
direct questioning, any prospective juror in order to enable counsel
to intelligently exercise peremptory challenges and challenges for
cause. Existing law provides that the judge in civil trials should
provide the parties with both the alphabetical list and the list of
prospective jurors in the order in which they will be called.
   Under existing law, which was enacted by initiative measure, in a
criminal case, the court is required to conduct the examination of
prospective jurors, except that the court may permit the parties,
upon a showing of good cause, to conduct a further inquiry. The
initiative measure provides that it may be amended by a measure
enacted by a 2/3 vote of each house.
   This bill would, in criminal trials, require the court to provide
the complete names of prospective jurors to counsel for each party,
as specified. The bill would also, in civil and criminal trials,
require the court and counsel for each party to address a prospective
juror using a number assigned by the court or by the 
potential   prospective  juror's first name and
last initial. The bill would also make nonsubstantive changes to
these provisions.
   Vote: 2/3. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated
local program: no.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

  SECTION 1.  Section 222.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure is amended
to read:
   222.5.  (a) To select a fair and impartial jury in civil jury
trials, the trial judge   court  shall
examine the prospective jurors. Upon completion of the  trial
judge's   court's  initial examination, counsel
for each party shall have the right to examine, by oral and direct
questioning, any of the prospective jurors so that counsel may
intelligently exercise both peremptory challenges and challenges for
cause. During any examination conducted by counsel for the parties,
the  trial judge   court  should permit
liberal and probing examination calculated to discover bias or
prejudice with regard to the circumstances of the particular case.
The fact that a topic has been included in the  trial judge's
  court's  examination shall not preclude
additional nonrepetitive or nonduplicative questioning in the same
area by counsel.
   (b) To help facilitate the jury selection process, the 
trial judge   court  in civil trials shall provide
to counsel for each party the complete names of the prospective
jurors, both alphabetically and in the order in which they will be
called. However, a prospective juror shall be addressed by the court
and counsel for each party by a number assigned by the court or by
the  potential   prospective  juror's first
name and last initial.
   (c) The  trial judge   court  should
allow a brief opening statement by counsel for each party before the
commencement of the oral questioning phase of the voir dire process.
   (d) The scope of the examination conducted by counsel shall be
within reasonable limits prescribed by the  trial judge
  court  in the  trial judge's 
 court's  sound discretion. In exercising  his or
her   its  sound discretion as to the form and
subject matter of voir dire questions, the  trial judge
  court  should consider, among other criteria, any
unique or complex elements, legal or factual, in the case and the
individual responses or conduct of jurors that may evince attitudes
inconsistent with suitability to serve as a fair and impartial juror
in the particular case. Specific unreasonable or arbitrary time
limits shall not be imposed in any case. The  trial judge
  court  shall not establish a blanket policy of a
time limit for voir dire.
   (e) The  trial judge   court  should
permit counsel to conduct voir dire examination without requiring
prior submission of the questions unless a particular counsel engages
in improper questioning. For purposes of this section, an "improper
question" is any question that, as its dominant purpose, attempts to
precondition the prospective jurors to a particular result,
indoctrinate the jury, or question the prospective jurors concerning
the pleadings or the applicable law. A court shall not arbitrarily or
unreasonably refuse to submit reasonable written questionnaires, the
contents of which are determined by the court in its sound
discretion, when requested by counsel. If a questionnaire is used,
the parties should be given reasonable time to evaluate the responses
to the questionnaires before oral questioning commences.
   (f) In civil cases, the court may, upon stipulation by counsel for
all the parties appearing in the action, permit counsel to examine
the prospective jurors outside the  trial judge's 
 court's  presence.
  SEC. 2.  Section 223 of the Code of Civil Procedure is amended to
read:
   223.  (a) In a criminal case, the court shall conduct an initial
examination of prospective jurors. The court may submit to the
prospective jurors additional questions requested by the parties as
it deems proper.
   (b) The court shall provide to counsel for each party the complete
names of the prospective jurors, both alphabetically and in the
order in which they will be called. However, a prospective juror
shall be addressed by the court and counsel for each party by a
number assigned by the court or by the  potential 
 prospective  juror's first name and last initial.
   (c) Upon completion of the court's initial examination, counsel
for each party shall have the right to examine, by oral and direct
questioning, any or all of the prospective jurors. The court may, in
the exercise of its discretion, limit the oral and direct questioning
of prospective jurors by counsel. The court may specify the maximum
amount of time that counsel for each party may question an individual
juror, or may specify an aggregate amount of time for each party,
which can then be allocated among the prospective jurors by counsel.
   (d) Voir dire of prospective jurors shall, where practicable,
occur in the presence of the other jurors in all criminal cases,
including death penalty cases. Examination of prospective jurors
shall be conducted only in aid of the exercise of challenges for
cause.
   (e) The  trial  court's exercise of its
discretion in the manner in which voir dire is conducted, including
any limitation on the time which will be allowed for direct
questioning of prospective jurors by counsel and any determination
that a question is not in aid of the exercise of challenges for
cause, shall not cause any conviction to be reversed unless the
exercise of that discretion has resulted in a miscarriage of justice,
as specified in Section 13 of Article VI of the California
Constitution.