The lesson for the courts is clear, never invite me to jury duty. This Monday I was excited to go to jury duty – I have always been called to jury duty only to have my session canceled before coming in.
This time, at least, I made it in the door before the case – which we covered earlier this week – was continued. I went in knowing full well that there was more of a chance of June snow in Yolo County than my being selected to serve on the jury, but I still wanted to watch the process from the inside.
In the video, Edwina Harper, jury services supervisor for Yolo County, told jurors that if they had been convicted of a felony at any point in their adult lives, they were precluded from serving on the jury.
The line struck me as wrong and I spent a good amount of time trying to research it.
After a brief Google search, I found California Code of Civil Procedure Section 203 (a)(5) which stated that “All persons are eligible and qualified to be prospective trial jurors, except the following” which included, “Persons who have been convicted of malfeasance in office or a felony, and whose civil rights have not been restored.”
The key provision was the last part, “whose civil rights have not been restored.” That would seem to mean people on probation or sex offenders would not be eligible, but others would. However, that is not what was said in the jury instructions.
So I called and spoke to Edwina Harper. She was very insistent that the “whose civil rights have not been restored” was in the video. I told her her I wrote it down and that it was not, and suggested that she watch the video.
She said that she knew what was said in the video since she had done it, but after further coaxing she agreed to watch the video and call me back.
To her credit, she did exactly that and within ten minutes called me back to inform me that I had been correct.
She said it was an oversight on her part. She said she used to read it verbally until she had an accident a few years ago and they recorded it. But left that part out.
She said that she will now add it over the video.
Moreover, she said that in the video anyone excluded is told to go to the office to fill out paper work and they would have caught it at that point should it arise.
Shawn Landry is the Assistant Court Executive Officer for Yolo County, and he told me, “We intend on correcting the video, however, until the video itself is corrected we are changing our practice to reflect the correct statement and our jury staff will, after the video is concluded, instruct the jurors verbally.”
He also added, “While the statement was omitted in the orientation video, it is included on our jury summons in item ‘G.’ “
Moreover, in a brochure we were sent with our jury summons, “Court and Community,” it informs the jurors that they are qualified under California law if they have “had your civil rights restored if you were convicted of a malfeasance or felony.”
Nevertheless, had I been a convicted felon from 20 years ago, I would not have read the pamphlets but, upon watching the video, would have wondered if I were eligible. According to Ms. Harper, the individual would have gone to the jury services office and they would have gone over the law at that point to determine eligibility.
It seems likely that this has not come up before, given their response.
Presiding Judge Dave Rosenberg told Yolo Judicial Watch, “The video was meant to be a shorthand presentation, to be supplemented by an oral presentation and a Q and A. The video was never meant to be a complete exposition of the law of jury service.”
He also noted that the jury summons does properly reflect the law, and he notes, “Even though the restoration of a felon’s rights is a rare thing, potential jurors do need to be properly advised, and in light of the jury summons, it appears to me that they are.”
He added, “That said, it doesn’t hurt to reinforce or to repeat, and the oral presentation by staff in the future certainly will do that.”
Hopefully this means that the next video will properly lay out the law to prospective jurors, and it of course makes one wonder both what other things did the court get wrong and what instructions jurors are getting from the judges.
The one thing I can say is that I was very impressed with the responsiveness of Ms. Harper and the court system in general.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Since the proper direction was given in written materials, no harm no foul. I think Judge Rosenberg’s response is on target:
[quote]Presiding Judge Dave Rosenberg told Yolo Judicial Watch, “The video was meant to be a shorthand presentation, to be supplemented by an oral presentation and a Q and A. The video was never meant to be a complete exposition of the law of jury service.”[/quote]
However, I am left to wonder under what conditions a felon’s civil rights to serve on a jury are reinstated?
From http://www.alanellis.com: “At first glance, it may seem that the question of what rights and privileges a federal felon may lose or retain is easily answered. A closer look reveals a patchwork of disqualifications and restorations. The laws governing the same rights and privileges vary widely from state to state, as well as various federal preclusions from some essential rights. Convicted felons may lose essential rights, such as the right to hold a public office or to vote. Eligibility to earn a living and practice a profession may be restricted. And, in almost every state, as well as under federal law, convicted felons will either be restricted in or relinquish their right to carry or possess firearms. These disabilities and the collateral consequences that flow from a federal felony conviction can be explained as burdens that result from a conviction.
The majority of jurisdictions do, however, provide for a means of removing these burdens. Relief frequently comes automatically with the passing of time, or through an executive or judicial act that is often based on demonstrating that the defendant has been rehabilitated. Again, as with the disability itself, there is no general agreement on how the burdens are lifted. The road to relief must be evaluated on a state-by-state basis and in light of the few governing federal laws.”
From http://www.felonyrestrictions.com: “For example, in California, a felon whose civil rights have not been restored is not allowed to serve on Jury Duty. If you have received a pardon, or had your records expunged, you may be able to serve on Jury Duty.”
I disagree that there is no harm no foul. The problem is that I never saw the instructions in the written materials, but I saw the video. So then the question is what are they telling them informally in the office. Other other hand it seems that it may be a pretty rare thing to have their rights restored anyway in California. Other states have it done automatically.
To dmg: Why didn’t you see the instructions in the written materials if it was there? I assume bc you did not read the written materials? If that is the case, whose fault is that?
Secondly, felons seeking to be seated on a jury is undoubtedly a rare occurrence, but it does raise an interesting point – about felons and how do they get their civil rights back if at all. It seems to differ from state to state, and from what I can tell, CA is pretty rigid in its thinking. From what I read, short of a pardon, felons don’t get certain civil rights back – but I’d have to do further research to be sure exactly what the situation is. I did gather the civil rights of the most concern seemed to be voting; gun ownership; employment (not in any particular order).
Elaine see CPC 1203.4
To AdRemmer: Thanks for the cite. From your cite and my research, it appears that a felon who has completed his/her sentence:
1) Must admit on employment applications s/he has been convicted of felony if specifically asked, unless under certain circumstances they were able to obtain an expungement;
2)Cannot possess or own a firearm;
3) Must admit on applications for public office s/he has been convicted of felony if specifically asked;
4) Can have felony used to enhance sentences in future criminal proceedings;
5) Can obtain pardon from Governor for extraordinary circumstances.
So I would guess in order for felon to serve on jury, they would have to obtain pardon; not sure if expungement would be enough…