ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: August 15, September 12 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

2020 ACSOL Conference – Postponed to Oct 10-11

ACSOL NewsCalifornia

CA: Sex Offenders Demand Right To Serve On Juries: Judge May Reject Lawsuit, Even Though Other Felons Can Be Jurors

[mynewsla.com – 7/8/20]

Should registered sex offenders be allowed to serve on juries, just as other convicted felons?

A judge said Wednesday she is inclined to dismiss a lawsuit filed against the Los Angeles Superior Court and state Attorney General Xavier Becerra in which five registered sex offenders say they and people like them are being unconstitutionally barred from serving as jurors.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Barbara Scheper, saying there are “novel issues the court is being asked to consider,” took the case brought by the Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws under submission. She said she may have a ruling next week.

The alliance is representing four men and one woman in the suit filed last Nov. 7 against Becerra and Sherri Carter, the clerk of the Los Angeles Superior Court. They are challenging a 2019 state law that they say initially was written to allow all convicted felons, including registered sex offenders, to be jurors.

However, the bill was later amended “to target registrants by making them the sole class of persons excluded from that bill’s reforms,” according to the suit.

In their court papers, lawyers for Becerra state that the Legislature “could have rationally been concerned with juror bias … harbored by persons who are subject to continuing, intrusive government monitoring, surveillance, and supervision.”

Plaintiffs’ attorney Janice M. Bellucci countered that even convicted murderers can now serve as jurors. She said the way to try and limit bias is through peremptory challenges during jury selection so that sex offenders could be eliminated from those cases in which they could be suspected of being partial. She maintains the current law is unconstitutional.

Read the full article

 

Join the discussion

  1. SR

    “In their court papers, lawyers for Becerra state that the Legislature “could have rationally been concerned with juror bias … harbored by persons who are subject to continuing, intrusive government monitoring, surveillance, and supervision.”

    I like how they accidentally layout how BS the registry is and making a matter of record. Intrusive surveillance and supervision by the government? Why that sounds awful like being in custody!

    I don’t understand how they can continue to have their cake and eat it, too?

    • New Person

      Sure dictates to being under custody still. Glad I’m not the only who read that the same way!

    • Dustin

      Was thinking the same thing when I first read that. Also that it sounded pretty damn punitive…

    • Da

      “subject to continuing, intrusive government monitoring, surveillance, and supervision.”
      Yup, that does indeed sound like ongoing custody (i.e., punishment) to me as well. 😠

      • David

        Hmmm. 🤔 If I had been convicted of PERJURY or WITNESS INTIMIDATION, I would be allowed to serve on a jury. But if I were convicted of looking at even one illegal image, I would not be allowed to serve on a jury. That makes no sense.
        I would love to know what Judge Sheper’s “novel issues” are.
        (Maybe the Judge’s “novel issue” is that she feels entirely unable to view the plaintiffs in a fair and unbiased manner!)

    • AJ

      IIRC, the 2nd CCoA has already said registration is being in custody. It was a habeas corpus case that was appealed to SCOTUS, which declined to hear it–even though the 2nd’s stance is in conflict with other CCoAs. It would seem this case has prepped legal groundwork in claiming registration beyond the Smith-era laws is custody.

      • TS

        @AJ

        Off hand, can you share which CCoAs are opposite in thinking to the 2nd WRT in custody opinions? Interesting SCOTUS skipped it, but not completely surprised given they are skipping many cases that should be discussed and being called out for it, especially by one Justice C. Thomas who is not afraid to call out his robemates when they shy away from cases.

        • AJ

          @TS:
          Sure. First, a correction. It is the 3rd, not 2nd, CCoA that ruled on custody. The other CCoAs I had in mind come from the 3rd’s decision in Piasecki (https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/164175p.pdf). According to footnote 83, the 4th, 6th, 7th, and 9th have all said no. The 3rd addresses why it found otherwise (p.17). I don’t know if any of the other CCoA cases were appealed to SCOTUS; I only know Piasecki was and SCOTUS denied cert (https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-1490.html).

          Addendum: According to footnote 5 in PA’s Petition to SCOTUS, “The First, Second, Eighth, Eleventh and D.C. Circuits have yet to address this issue.” (http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-1490/101157/20190528154546375_Piasecki writ.pdf) (Note that this URL is incomplete due to formatting at the end. You’ll have to copy and paste it.)

        • TS

          @AJ

          Thanks. That rung a bell from what you posted here recently, IIRC, about that case. Where is the Fifth and Tenth on this topic? Not that I am asking you to account for them, but when you do a head count, they are missing. I look forward to reading these links.

        • AJ

          @TS:
          “Where is the Fifth and Tenth on this topic?”
          —–
          I don’t know. It was only at the last second that I thought to check the SCOTUS petition and stumbled upon the footnote mentioning the other CCoAs. Perhaps the petition text and/or Piasecki’s opposition will mention the 5th and 10th.

        • TS

          @AJ

          See page 14 of the doc @ https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-1490/101157/20190528154546375_Piasecki writ.pdf to see where the Tenth stands on this issue in line with the Ninth, et al (Pg 13 has Footnote 5)

          See page 16 of the same doc where it says the Fifth Circuit has ruled in line also with the Ninth et al (“The other circuit courts of appeals to have addressed this question all have similarly concluded that a state’s sexual offender registration law does not constitute “custody” for purposes of federal habeas jurisdiction. See Johnson v. Davis, 697 Fed.Appx. 274, 275 (5th Cir. 2017) (Texas statute); Sullivan v. Stephens, 582 Fed.Appx. 375, 375 (5th Cir. 2014) (same)”…)

          There is the full accounting of the CCoAs on this issue…1 (3rd) for yes, it is custody and 6 (4-7th & 9-10th) for no, it is not custody and 5 yet to decide. So, the scales are still greatly tipped one way which would tell me that is why SCOTUS punted on this. Should they start to even out or have more than one CCoA think this way, then I can see them do a greater consideration of it if petitioned, IMO. Could be a long wait at this rate…

        • AJ

          @TS:
          Thanks for digging into it and the analysis. I wholly agree that a 1-6-5 tally is unfavorable and not something SCOTUS would reach out to solve. I also agree it will take some number of years before the other 5 manage to hear a case that properly aligns for us.

  2. Anonymous

    Awesome Janice. Thank you. Thank you Thank you.

  3. Static-99R Is A Scam

    I hope the judge looks at the case carefully.

    • Dustin

      She’ll have to in order to find a (flawed) reasoning to deny the petition.

      • Dph

        @Dustin Hope you are CORRECT
        On this Justin, it only makes Human Rights and post Rehabilitative sense as well of course, Constitutional both Calif And the Real one-U.S
        A.

      • Karl Scamson

        Well good point there. Sometimes judges surprise though. But if the judge does reject this lawsuit, I wonder if there are plans to appeal to the CA Court of Appeals.

      • David

        @ Dustin: I HOPE you are right. Unfortunately, time and again we have seen judges pay absolutely no attention to the arguments submitted or to any type of research or data.

  4. w

    A registrant could catch all the shady tactics employed by prosecutors so of course they don’t want one on a jury.

  5. Brandon

    How this isn’t considered punishment and being in custody is beyond me. I’m convinced that the climate is changing because of all the hot air coming out of government officials!! Come on judge rule on what’s in the constitution and not on emotions.

  6. Resident

    So we are under surveillance now??? I thought we were completely free according to the state.

    Sarcasm aside, I really hope we can use the bs to our advantage later.

  7. SR @ Janice

    Janice, could this lawyers comments be potentially used in a case against the registry should the judge dismiss this case based on this lawyer arguments? It sounds a lot like he’s saying RC’s are all “in custody” and thus bitter.

    • David

      I’m surprised the government attorney didn’t just state that “All sex offenders are in perpetual custody and, thus, cannot serve on a jury.” 😠

  8. Saddles

    Janice dear with due respect I have to applaude you again. I am glad you took on this case. Yes this jury issue sounds like a double standard right in front of your eyes and yes I’m glad you and the team are persuing this. Why would they call a sex offender to jury duty. If one was keeping records they would of known that the person was a sex offender. Thats like why was Donald Trump committee still sending me e-mails asking me for Donations when he should of known I was on the registry.

    Odd isn’t it. Nothing suprises one today when man is going above one’s ordain authority and over-riding in this in type of “Fools Parade” of true justice and values. No wonder some want to leave the country and this passport run amuck giberish and I thoughgt their was safety in numbers.

    My sister was on jury duty at one time and it was a case of someone being a drug dealer in this possission if he was or wasn’t this pusher man. Course they let him go at that time. So what if one induced drugs to a teenaged victim they meet on the internet in this fictitous wargame would they also add another charge such as drug pusher or who supplies the condom’s today or do they ask you to bring your own.

    Now how many teenage women would not know about that unless they knew it all or unless mothers said if your going to have sex in junior high be sure to carry your rubbers in case the boys don’t have them. This has been a public service message in this vain conceit of publc safety for your teenage asking for sex via the internet. Is that what this is all about.

  9. steve

    I really don’t understand the appeal to serve on a jury when inevitably the entire jury is going to know your status. They might let us in the jury pool but we’ll never get picked. Does not sound fun to me but have it.

    • Roger

      @steve, the point of winning the right of registrants to be on juries is not because everyone loves being on juries (I do not).

      The goal is to eliminate the prejudices against registrants one by one.

      ACSOL has fought anti-registrant juries, residency restrictions, presence restrictions, helping at voting locations and so on.

      They all add up to us being more and more a part of society.

      Other persecuted people groups throughout American history have had to go through a similar process.

      • norman

        If called, I will show up as a future lifetime registrant..

      • Joe

        @Roger

        You can chip away all you want but you will never be a part of society while registration exists. If you can live with that – fine. But to believe anything else is delusional.

  10. AERO1

    Honestly when you label someone a sex offender you have banished them from society and all civil duties . Why serve on a jury that benefits the society that banishes you and curses you that hates you.
    America better not ask me to do any kind of civil duty or anything that contributes to the benefit of society because I’m not a part of their society and I’m not going to sit here and act like I am by putting on a nice shirt and tie to sit on a jury in the name of Justice when every single registry in America constitutional rights have been taken away who cares about Justice at this point.
    People on the registry are starting to slowly form their own Society which really makes the American government nervous if you think they don’t Patrol this website and read our comments your crazy.
    Law enforcement knows IML is useless and those are the words of the Attorney General not mine.

    • Robert Neal

      It’s because they banished us, is exactly why we should serve on juries and fight for this right. it was the fact that citizens who are informed about the system are not allowed to serve within the system, so you have individuals who have never been through the process passing judgement and sentence on somebody who is facing quadruple triple life before they ever get to trial. To everyone else out there, I feel you I understand you don’t want anything to do with the system, but that is been the problem. Up until you were forced to register you had no idea what your rights were you had no idea how the system worked, or that evidence no longer matters. All you knew was that the system was there. That’s the problem so for all of you out there if you ever get a chance to register as a voter and serve on a jury please do especially here in club California

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 *

.