Five registrants have filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court challenging a new state law that allows all felons, except those convicted of a sex offense, to serve as jurors. According to the lawsuit, the new law violates the equal protection clause of the state’s constitution.
The new law, which began as Senate Bill 310, did not initially exclude registrants from jury service. That version of the bill passed the Senate, however, the bill was later amended to exclude registrants in the Assembly’s Appropriations Committee.
“There is absolutely no reason given in the legislative history of Senate Bill 310 for the exclusion of registrants from jury service,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “And there is no rational basis for that exclusion.”
As currently written, the law allows individuals convicted of murder, kidnapping, robbery and other violent offenses to serve on juries. Prior to passage of the bill, one law enforcement organization complained about that possibility. Specifically, the Riverside County Sheriffs Association stated, “SB 310 would force law-abiding citizens into close proximity with violent offenders, creating dangerous situations in closed jury rooms and during sequester. Law-abiding jurors have agreed to fulfill their civic duty to serve. They have NOT agreed to spend the day, weeks or even months in close quarters with convicted gang-bangers.”
Supporters of the new law, including the ACLU, stated that the new law was necessary in order to ensure that California’s trial juries better reflect the diversity of this state. They noted that the state’s prior felony jury exclusion had an adverse impact on racial minorities, especially black and African American men. One of the four plaintiffs in this case is an African American man, one is a Hispanic man, and one is a Hispanic woman.
According to one committee report on the bill, “despite California’s recent efforts to reform the criminal justice system, one in three African American men will be convicted of a felony at some point in their lives. Denying over 30% of a demographic group the ability to serve on a jury significantly limits a litigant from that group the ability to try a case before a jury of their peers and disproportionately excludes that segment of the population from the vital democratic institution of jury service.”
According to another committee report on the bill, “automatic jury exclusions of those with criminal records should be abandoned.” This position is based, in part, upon the results of scholarly research which concluded that “juror eligibility facilitates changes in convicted felons’ self-concepts, promoting prosocial identity transformation, tempering the stigma of a felony conviction and prompting the discovery of self worth.”
Excellent!! 😁
I especially like the scholarly comment: “juror eligibility facilitates changes in convicted felons’ self-concepts, promoting prosocial identity transformation, tempering the stigma of a felony conviction and prompting the discovery of self worth.” 👍
Absolutely!!
Good luck to ACSOL with this case. Thank you for your continuous representation of us all!
All the best wishes and prayers for Janice in this case
As a man facing FTR here in WI a registered person on my jury would tickle me pink, however the DA would surely use a preemptive challenge to put that person out of the pool. In WI the law prohibits felons from serving on juries.
Best of luck with this challenge ACSOL again stands against the tide of affirmative disability.
Personally I’d rather not go and be questioned if I have a felony and have to say I’m an R/C in front of the rest of the jury pool. What if someone you work with is in the same pool, you’re outed and fired. IMO wasted time and would rather see us fight the scheme.
*****
Specifically, the Riverside County Sheriffs Association stated, “SB 310 would force law-abiding citizens into close proximity with violent offenders, creating dangerous situations in closed jury rooms and during sequester. Law-abiding jurors have agreed to fulfill their civic duty to serve. They have NOT agreed to spend the day, weeks or even months in close quarters with convicted gang-bangers.”
*****
As always, in the mind of a TBL, “once a criminal, always a criminal.” As a class they simply do not believe people make mistakes, nor do they believe in rehabilitation.
This is because they’re just trying to tighten the reigns on the sex offense hell. They don’t want RSOs to expose jury trial secrets such as Marsys law protections that can make an accuser a phantom and support animals that can “ease a victim’s testimony” before lying at trial.
Oh! Riverside? No wonder, yeah that’s good old Mike Ramos’ cess pit backyard. Wait, didn’t he get voted out last year? I see the prick can’t enjoy his forced retirement in peace, he’s still trying to screw the falsely accused. Maybe it has something to do with Kamala Harris trying be Prosecutor in Chief and keep the Marsy’s law hell rolling cross country…
Hm…
In the words of Miracle Max, “Good luck storming the castle!” I wish you all well in this pursuit.
I am curious, though, as to specifically how the equal protection will be used in this case because of the possibility to be used in a parallel case. Thx in advance for the answer (from anyone).
For many people, this might be a blessing. Yet, it’s our right to serve as a juror. Does a murderer have more rights? If we allow this to stand, what’s next? Park ban? Beach ban? Mountains ban? Mall ban? Freeway ban? Halloween (whoops) ban? Church (whoops) ban? You can’t go out at night? Special license plates?
Why not make the law that felons can’t serve on juries adjudicating crimes similar to the one(s) they were convicted of? This would mean SOs can’t serve on juries in sx crime cases, drug dealers can’t on drug cases, etc. Would that make too much sense?
The right to a trial “before a jury of your peers” may have had its place in the old west when the prairie lacked judicial infrastructure, but it such an outdated concept. These days the only jurors are retired folks, public servants who get paid for their service and those stupid enough not to get out of jury duty.
So one can be expected to spend time in a small room with a convicted murderer but not a teacher who had a relationship with a 17 year old student? If sex offenses are categorically so objectionable that they require registration one can still be expected to spend time in a small room with a registrant based on a misdemeanor offense?
The whole thing is laughable. I almost wish it would be left alone to show the punitive and irrational nature of the whole scheme.
@ New Person:. First, the publicity itself is valuable as it will make members of the public consider why those convicted of sexual offences should – or should not – serve on juries, often many years after the offense, conviction and punishment. It also provides an opportunity for plaintiffs’ attorney to argue using reason, facts, scholarly research and statistics, while defense (State) attorneys are left arguing the standard myths, rhetoric & sophistry. Additionally, a winning case for the plaintiffs – and ruling/findings that include a judge’s own well-stated understanding of the facts – can be very valuable in future litigation. (I’m certain more arguments can be made, but those are the ones that immediately come to mind.)
As someone who wore the uniform for many years, I volunteered to fight for those who could serve on juries regardless of what their history is. Whether you want to serve on one or not is up to you, but one should not be excluded from having the ability to do so. Excluding people is not what our country is about even though it’s an ugly stain that lives daily.
@kilroy – interesting perspective on peers.
Peer Law and Legal Definition. A peer is a person’s equal. The U.S. Constitution guarantees criminal defendants a “jury of one’s peers,” which means an impartial group of citizens from the judicial district (e.g. county) in which the defendant lives. (
USLegal › definitions › peer
Peer Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.)