ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings: September 21 – Phone meeting details

Emotional Support Group Meetings (Los Angeles, Sacramento, Phone)

ACSOLCalifornia

CA: Senate Bill Amendment Excludes Registrants from Juries

Senate Bill 310, which would expand the number of individuals eligible to serve on a jury, was amended this week in a way that prohibits anyone convicted of a felony sex offense from that service. The bill was amended on August 26 as it was being considered by the Assembly’s Appropriations Committee.

“Once again, state legislators have thrown people convicted of a sex offense under the bus,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “Registrants are citizens and therefore should be allowed to serve on a jury.”

Significantly the bill would allow individuals convicted of a violent felony, including murder, to serve on a jury. However, the bill would not allow individuals convicted of a felony sex offense, including a non-violent, non-contact offense such as possession of illegal images, to do so.

“As amended, Senate Bill 310 violates both the 6th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution,” stated Bellucci. “If this bill becomes law, it will be challenged in court in order to protect the civil rights of registrants.”

The original version of Senate Bill 310 was introduced on February 15, 2019, by Senator Nancy Skinner. That version of the bill did not exclude individuals convicted of a sex offense from serving on a jury.

Join the discussion

  1. The Persecuted

    who wants to serve on a jury anyways. Seems like a win to me. Can they exclude us from paying taxes next?

    • Will Allen

      I would love to serve on a jury because I would ensure that the criminal regime lost. No matter what.

      Criminal regimes are smart to try to exclude people they are persecuting. They deserve any retribution that can be delivered. In any way. I hope these criminal regimes at least have enough sense to see and understand the monsters they’ve created. They aren’t so bright though.

      • Timmmy

        That is why they do not want you on it.

        However, if we exclude as many as possible from juries, then it will come to the point where the State is unable to provide them, and the person goes scot-free.

        • James

          I have a firm suspicion that the new bill expanding eligibility was promulgated for that very reason. You may be on to something!

  2. Fact should matter

    They don’t want our civic duty on a trial procedural, but they are all about it being our “civic duty” to register any new tattoos or address changes..

  3. G4Change

    Would registrants who have only a misdemeanor conviction still be allowed to serve on a jury? Just curious.

    • TS

      Introduced for political points knowing it’ll be challenged in court on constitutional grounds.

  4. KM

    Not that it even matters. Prosecutors auto remove pretty much anyone with a crime anyways. Just because you can legally serve doesn’t mean you ever will.

  5. ReadyToFight

    The only time we’ll see positive change for our Price Club members will be when Lawyers and Lawmakers either take the gloves off and fight or stop pandering to Soccer Moms and uphold our Constitutional rights.

  6. Jack

    It seems misdemeanor sex offenses will be able to serve on a jury @G4change. That’s written on the law as amended. That said, Janice is still right to oppose the change. Give these people an inch and they take a mile.

    • G4Change

      “That said, Janice is still right to oppose the change.”

      I totally agree 100%, Jack. I was just curious if the law was written as all RCs or just felony. Hopefully this can be challenged under equal protection or something. Murder someone = you can serve on a jury. Accidentally download the wrong file online = you can’t serve. Ridiculous! If they let some felons serve, then all felons should be able to serve.

  7. MS

    More evidence from our genius law writers/makers that registration obviously isn’t punishment. I guess they can define punishment however they want. Perhaps in their eyes if they aren’t beating us with sticks, flogging us, prying off our fingernails with needle nose pliers, etc., it’s not “punishment”. Rather than “punish” us they will just strip us of our rights, civil duty, dignity, self worth, etc., every chance they get, all while expecting us to pay our taxes like other citizens.

    • Dph

      @MS…you have that exactly right MS the what’s next stance will they (R) LG and other Appropriation Comm Chairs take add in last minute to cont to ensure no rhights fir RCs that follow the law but let those perm take away have full burial activities. What’s next. How can NS Chair let her bull be amended being on safety board totally changing her inclusive bill and taking iut RCs that have never perm cut life off for the vast majority . The rights are at dire straits g.j ht again and ACSOL and Team JB to the rescue.
      2020 almost and they are still going backwards in RC rights in the Capitol. RC rights from lawmakers hiding.

  8. bob

    I though we as a FELON couldn’t do jury duty ? ? Cause IF I CAN do jury duty I will just so I can find a murderer NOT GUILTY….. Screwing the system BACK that screwed me !@!

    Maybe we can do jury duty ? but as soon as you come to the ? have you ever been convicted of a felony and we say YES they automatically dismiss us ??

  9. Lake County

    That’s one right I could do without.

  10. Eric

    Friends, we should jump at any chance to make public decisions: voting, serving on a jury, holding elective office. And we must fight to maintain our right to participate in public life.

    • TS

      @Eric

      You are correct, fighting for these rights is key even if one decides to not participate in it, e.g. jury duty, which is their choice. One right taken away is a slippery slope to another as we have seen. However, remember, many fine folks have died to maintain these rights elected officials want to ban people from in this country. How one votes on a jury is for them to decide and live with and is no one else’s business.

      If one choses to not participate, great, but don’t take it away from others who are in the same situation and may want to participate. The ability to do so is part of what we have in this country. Ok, enough, apple pie and red/white/blue.

    • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

      Eric, I agree with you in spirit. I have long advocated for individual jurors to use “jury nullification” to prevent defendants from being convicted of things that should not be crimes in the first place. The problem is, I know that I will never be selected for a jury because of my conviction so it is kind of academic. Given that, I make sure that they know from the very first notice of jury duty that I am going to exercise my right to nullify any jury. I never hear back from that after that.

      • CR

        I show up for the jury pool when I get called (you’ll get in trouble if you don’t), but I’ve never been enpaneled since my offense, and I’m pretty sure I never will be. That said, if I were, I would give no indication that I might do anything other than serve as an impartial juror. That would give me the best chance of exercising my right to nullify in the event I decide that it is the law that must be judged rather than the defendent. I would welcome the opportunity to do so.

  11. Dustin

    Give it a few more years and they likely won’t have enough non-registered persons to sit on a jury. For that matter, I wonder if any defense counsel asks potential jurors if they know someone on the registry, if they think they were treated fairly, and so on. The state can only strike so many…

    • Will Allen

      This illustrates how important it is to properly teach your children that the criminal regimes and their law enforcement criminals (LECs) should never be trusted. You wouldn’t want your children to be part of a jury one day that is convicting someone because the person “looks guilty” or “acted guilty”. You want your children to be much, much more thoughtful than the average person who lives in America and is part of a jury. Most of those people wouldn’t know a fact from their opinion if their lives depended on it. Scary bunch.

      I’ve taught my children very thoroughly. They are teaching their children and more. In my case, the Registries are affecting thousands of people and numerous generations. Registries are good in that respect at least in that they are clearly showing people how dangerous these criminal regimes and LECs are. Registries are breeding multi-generational, widespread contempt and disrespect. Amerika is obviously devolving and Registries will keep helping.

      • TS

        @Will Allen

        Just show the minors the DOJ stat that shows LEOs are a threat of offending against minors like coaches, clergy, etc to taint their thinking. Even McGruff the Crime Dog would be an enemy of the children if they only knew.

        • AJ

          @TS:
          “Even McGruff the Crime Dog would be an enemy of the children if they only knew.”
          —–
          He’s dressed in a trench coat, and who knows if those are pants or merely lower-leg props. Toss in he’s always hanging around crime and children. Hmm….

        • TS

          @AJ

          Shhh, you are going to blow his cover!

          If he pees in public on a hydrant, tree, etc, then is that flashing or public urination? Asking for the horrified soccer mom who witnesses this while covering the eyes of their child.

  12. David

    WTF!? So had I been convicted of witness tampering, terrorist threats, identity fraud, lying to a federal law enforcement officer, or even all-out, no-holds-barred perjury, I’d be perfectly acceptable to serve on a jury??

    Grrrrr! 😠 *gritting teeth*

    • Will Allen

      I mean, people who support the Registries are plainly stupid but this does appear to be a stretch even for them. On one hand, if you are a criminal regime that is persecuting some group of people, I guess you want to keep the persecution going AND also try to keep the targets from being able to retaliate (e.g. via jury nullification). On the flip side, it does show everyone just how stupid and pathetic you are AND it gives the persecuted people more motivation to destroy you.

      So, hmmmm, what is a harassing criminal regime to do? It’s a dilemma.

      But it might be kind of fun to guess at why the idiots think this is a good idea. Let’s try:

      1. They don’t want you to be sitting there in the jury box and trying to be all $EXY, checking out everyone and trying to get them to check you out. Distracting!

      2. There might be children in the courtroom and you need to pay attention to the case instead of being very distracted by the children.

      3. People might be offended that they would have to sit in a room and have a sensible conversation with a “$EX offender”.

      4. If the jury was sequestered to a hotel or something, that would definitely be trouble.

      5. There might be some situations where you could end up alone with another person who you don’t know.

      That was kind of fun and annoying. People who support Registries are dumbasses.

  13. Laura

    Bottom line is it violates the Registrant’s Constitutional Rights….
    Would we have a way of knowing where this change was added in to SB310? Or by whom?

  14. New Person

    California Constitution
    Declaration of Rights

    Article 1, Section 7 (b):
    ” (b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.”

    I’m not a lawyer, but a layman. According to California law, every California citizens must receive the same privileges or immunities on the same terms to all citizens. The law states you cannot exclude or segregate privileges (jury duty) [or immunities (1203.4)] on the same terms (all felons).

    The privileges (or immunities) can be changed or taken away from ALL citizens by changing the law.

    Because of the chronological sentence structure, privileges and immunities *must* apply to *all* citizens on the same terms. Felons are excluded from jury duty. This new bill is allowing the privilege for Felons to participate in jury duty. But the bill excludes one subset of Felons, the registrants of PC 290. By California’s Constitution, Section 1, Section 7(b), no bill is allowed to segregate privileges or immunities that is granted on the same term to all citizens.

    This bill is evidence of the continuation to treating registrants as second class citizens as they have separate laws only made for them.

    Initially, the registry was supposed to only be seen by the police department alone. Since then, more penalties have been implemented to registrants. The 2003 Smith v Doe ruling, which was to deem it non-invasive, has been muddled to permit laws to do whatever regardless of the unconstitutionality of the law. Case in point, California’s re:Taylor, which is about living restrictions. Being segregated from participating on the Jury that allows Felons to partake into civil community is a magnanimous evidence that the state is making official that registrants are second class citizens as they are banished from being a part of society.

    Why aren’t we using the California Constitution? Article 1, Section 7(b) was plainly written such that it cannot be obfuscated. Privileges and immunities must apply to “ALL” California citizens based upon the same terms. Therefore, all Felons participate or no Felons participate on jury duties.

    • R M

      @New Person: “Why aren’t we using the California Constitution? Article 1, Section 7(b) was plainly written such that it cannot be obfuscated. Privileges and immunities must apply to “ALL” California citizens based upon the same terms. Therefore, all Felons participate or no Felons participate on jury duties.”

      99% of the citizens don’t know this nor care… unless it affects them… that’s why.

      • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

        Remember, there’s “jury-eligible” and then there’s “jury-picked.” That’s why I make sure that they know before I would have to show up for the jury selection theater that I’m a felon, because I know that I won’t make it on to any jury with a criminal conviction and years in prison. It’s just not going to happen. The prosecution team, and quite possibly the defense, would strike me as a juror. Saves us all a lot of time and trouble.

  15. Gwen

    My big shock was that all offenders sentenced to prison fall under the category of “Violent”- regardless of offense. Which means they server 85% of their sentence whether is was sexting, viewing/sharing illegal images, kidnapping, murder. Compared to those offenses that they consider Non-Violent only have to meet the 55% of time served before being paroled. A non-violent offense should be exactly that…Non-violent.

    • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

      True, Gwen. I’ve been beating the “violence isn’t necessarily actual violence” drum for over a decade now and it is gratifying to see that that message is finally starting to register with registrants and even some non-registrants. “Violence” is a term that is being used to throw the game and to keep us locked-up. We need to push against this perversion of the English language hard and continuously.

  16. TnT

    Well , That doesn’t matter because 1 million people on a unconditional registry….Pretty soon they will run out of family members to 🙂 They are as stupid as it comes , I hear with all the B.s laws they have passed trying to keep the poor down in America one in three Americans have felonies ??

  17. vim xwb

    Just because you are an SO, does not mean nobody will want you on a jury. Case in point… the “natural instinct” is to not want molestation victims to judge your case. About 9 years ago, my attorney MADE SURE, during voir dire (jury selection) to get as many molestation victims on the jury as possible. The case went “my way,” because “real victims” can tell if an alleged victim is lying.

  18. Lake County

    I’m confused, it was my understanding that California felons cannot be on a jury unless restored by pardon, Certificate of Rehabilitation, or Penal Code section 1203.4 dismissal. Cal. Const. art. V, § 8(a); Cal. Civ. Proc. § 203(a)(5). Cal. Penal §§ 4800, 4812?”13.

    So what does this new Senate Bill do that is different than existing laws?

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *

.