Today's Law As Amended


Bill PDF |Add To My Favorites | print page

AB-1766 Examination of prospective jurors.(2015-2016)



As Amends the Law Today


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 a civil jury trial, the trial judge shall conduct an initial examination of prospective jurors. At the final status conference or at the first practical opportunity prior to voir dire, whichever comes first, the trial judge shall consider and discuss with counsel the form and subject matter of voir dire questions. Before voir dire by the trial judge, the parties may submit questions to the trial judge. The trial judge may include additional questions requested by the parties as the trial judge deems proper.
(b) (a)  (1) To   select a fair and impartial jury in civil jury trials, the 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 in order to enable counsel to so that counsel may  intelligently exercise both peremptory challenges and challenges for cause. The scope of the examination conducted by counsel shall be within reasonable limits prescribed by the trial judge in the judge’s sound discretion subject to the provisions of this chapter.  During any examination conducted by counsel for the parties, the trial judge shall  court should  permit liberal and probing examination calculated to discover bias or prejudice with regard to the circumstances of the particular case before the court.  case.  The fact that a topic has been included in the trial judge’s  court’s  examination shall should  not preclude appropriate followup  additional nonrepetitive or nonduplicative  questioning in the same area by counsel. The trial judge shall permit counsel to conduct voir dire examination without requiring prior submission of the questions unless a particular counsel engages in improper questioning. 
(2) (b)  The trial judge shall not impose specific unreasonable or arbitrary time limits or establish an inflexible time limit policy for voir dire. To help facilitate the jury selection process, the court in civil trials should 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. 
(3) (c)  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. The 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. 
(c) (d)  (1) The  In exercising the judge’s sound discretion, the trial judge shall give due consideration to all of the following:  scope of the examination conducted by counsel shall be within reasonable limits prescribed by the court in the court’s sound discretion. In exercising its sound discretion as to the form and subject matter of voir dire questions, the 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 court shall not establish a blanket policy of a time limit for voir dire. 
(A) The amount of time requested by trial counsel.
(B) Any unique or complex elements, legal or factual, in the case.
(C) Length of the trial.
(D) Number of parties.
(E) Number of witnesses.
(F) Whether the case is designated as a complex or long cause.
(2) As voir dire proceeds, the judge shall permit supplemental time for questioning based on any of the following:
(A) 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.
(B) Composition of the jury panel.
(C) An unusual number of for cause challenges.
(d) Upon the request of a party, the trial judge shall allow a brief opening statement by counsel for each party prior to the commencement of the oral questioning phase of the voir dire process.
(e) In civil cases, the trial judge may, upon stipulation by counsel for all the parties appearing in the action, permit counsel to examine the prospective jurors outside a judge’s presence.
(f) (e)  A trial judge  The 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 utilized, used,  the parties shall should  be given reasonable time to evaluate the responses to the questionnaires before oral questioning commences.
(g) (f)  To help facilitate the jury selection process, at the earliest practical time, the judge in a civil trial shall provide the parties with both the alphabetical list and the list of prospective jurors in the order in which they will be called. 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 court’s presence. 

SEC. 2.

 Section 223 of the Code of Civil Procedure is amended to read:

223.
 (a) To select a fair and impartial jury in a criminal jury trial, the trial judge  In a criminal case, the court  shall conduct an initial examination of prospective jurors. At the first practical opportunity prior to voir dire, the trial judge shall consider the form and subject matter of voir dire questions. Before voir dire by the trial judge, the parties may submit questions to the trial judge. The trial judge may include  The court may submit to the prospective jurors  additional questions requested by the parties as the trial judge  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, the court, in each criminal trial, shall determine a uniform manner by which each prospective juror shall be addressed by the court and counsel for each party, according to one of the following:
(1) An identification number assigned by the court.
(2) The prospective juror’s first name and the first initial of his or her last name.
(3) The prospective juror’s title and last name.
(c) Before examining prospective jurors, the court shall advise them that, in accordance with state law, the court and counsel for each party are prohibited, in all criminal cases, from addressing prospective jurors by their full names during jury selection, and are required to address each prospective juror by an identification number, by his or her first name and the first initial of his or her last name, or by his or her title and last name.
(b) (d)  (1)  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 or all  of the prospective jurors. The scope of the examination conducted by counsel shall be within reasonable limits prescribed by the trial judge in the judge’s sound discretion subject to the provisions of this chapter. During any examination conducted by counsel for the parties, the trial judge shall permit liberal and probing examination calculated to discover bias or prejudice with regard to the circumstances of the particular case or the parties before the court. The fact that a topic has been included in the trial judge’s examination shall not preclude appropriate followup questioning in the same area  court may, in the exercise of its discretion, limit the oral and direct questioning of prospective jurors  by counsel. The trial judge should permit counsel to conduct voir dire examination without requiring prior submission of the questions unless a particular counsel engages in improper questioning. 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. 
(2) The trial judge shall not impose specific unreasonable or arbitrary time limits or establish an inflexible time limit policy for voir dire. As voir dire proceeds, the trial judge shall permit supplemental time for questioning based on 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.
(3) 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 or indoctrinate the jury.
(c) In exercising the judge’s sound discretion, the trial judge shall consider all of the following:
(1) The amount of time requested by trial counsel.
(2) Any unique or complex legal or factual elements in the case.
(3) The length of the trial.
(4) The number of parties.
(5) The number of witnesses.
(d) (e)  Voir dire of any  prospective jurors shall, where practicable, take place  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 judge shall, in his or her sound discretion, consider reasonable written questionnaires when requested by counsel. If a questionnaire is utilized, the parties shall be given reasonable time to evaluate the responses to the questionnaires before oral questioning commences.
(f) To help facilitate the jury selection process, at the earliest practical time, the trial judge in a criminal trial shall provide the parties with the list of prospective jurors in the order in which they will be called.
(g) (f)  The trial judge’s  court’s  exercise of its  discretion in the manner in which voir dire is conducted, including any limitation on the time that 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, is shall  not cause for a  any  conviction to be reversed, reversed  unless the exercise of that discretion results  has resulted  in a miscarriage of justice, as specified in Section 13 of Article VI of the California Constitution.
(g) This section does not limit public access to juror information, as provided for under Section 237.
(h) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2022, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2022, deletes or extends that date.

SEC. 3.

 Section 223 is added to the Code of Civil Procedure, 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. 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. Voir dire of any 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.
(b) 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.
(c) This section is operative on and after January 1, 2022.