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.

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. 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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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.  
 

37 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

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

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..

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ??

That’s one right I could do without.

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.

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…

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*

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?

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.

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.

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 ??

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.

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?

I get that it should be fair. All felons or no felons.

In my case, I actually use my conviction to get out of jury duty. I have gotten the notice three times. Each time I have written an extremely graphic, almost erotica-style, letter detailing my crime with disguctingly graphic details and why my conviction should prevent my service on a jury. Always excused and given two years before next notice.

Not surprising. These are the same corrupt politicians that bought into the Static-99R scams.