Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Summary
For years, various professional groups have been trying unsuccessfully to remove their members from the jurors. Probation officials are trying again this year.
Modesto AssemblyMember Juan Alanis is a former sheriff sergeant. Corona AssemblyMember Bill Esaili is a former county and a federal prosecutor. The two Republicans agree on many things when it comes to crimes and courts.
But Esiel informs Alanis last week that he is steadily opposed to Alanis’s bill, which will give a constant omission to the county employees to escape from the obligation of the jurors in criminal cases. Unions of State Probation Officers are championship Assembly Bill 387,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, must have the same rights as the police officers and the sheriff’s deputies in order to avoid the jurors’ service.
But Esayli, who has pursued more than 20 criminal processes in her career, said that probation officials should not differ from any other California.
“If we go this time, today they are probation officials,” ” He told the Assembly Judiciary Committee last week. “Tomorrow, these are court officials, and then they will be prosecutors and public defenders and judges and probably politicians.”
Alanis’s bill, however, has advanced 11-1 from its first hearing, with Essayli giving the only vote “no”. The bill advanced on Thursday from the floor of the Assembly to the Senate of California without anyone voting against it. However, 13 members did not vote on the measure, including Essayli. As CalMatters reportedThe voting does not take into account the same as the vote “no”. Legislators regularly avoid voting on contradictory measures to avoid angry influential political groups or to offend their colleagues.
For years, various professional groups and alliances have been trying to get the legislature to give their members a pass from a compulsory obligation to the jurors. Probation officials hope that their last attempt ends differently than in 2018 when the then government. Jerry Brown vetoed such an account.
“The Judicial Service is a major duty for citizenship,” ” Brown writesS “I am not inclined to expand the list of those released simply because of their profession.”
Probation officials control young people and criminal criminals for adults who were sentenced to a probationary period instead of a prison or prison. They manage the detention facilities in the county. Probation departments regularly provide courts with reports on the defendants of judges and lawyers to examine during criminal proceedings. Employees are also working with local law enforcement officers on various initiatives to prevent crimes and they play a role in efforts to invest in career training offenders and other reform programs.
Learn more about the legislators mentioned in this story.
Alanis told the judicial committee that the compulsory service of the jurors is withdrawing the probation officers from these jobs, sometimes for days. This, Alanis said, leaves “the accused unattended or unchanged for long periods” as employees are waiting to be fired. He said it was rare for them to actually find themselves at the jurors, as their jobs are regarded as too favorable to the prosecutor’s office.
“The simple presence of a probation officer as a potential judge can create biases in the defendants, lawyers, even counterparts, which potentially undermines the trust and justice of the process,” he said. “In some cases … they can be directly familiar with the people involved in the case.”
Initially, the legislator proposed liberating probation officers from all jurors, including civil cases. The latest version only applies to criminal court hearings.
The probation officer is facing a grill
Chief Probation Director of San Joaquin County, Steve Jackson. told the committee “Maintaining us is eligible is just a wasteful time for the courts.”
Sesiel did not buy Alanis and Jackson’s arguments. He grilled Jackson, as if the probation officer is a potential judicial lounger sitting in a jury box.
“You do not say that the probation officials are prejudiced, so they will not be able to serve jurors, will they?” Essayli asked.
– No, sir.
“Okay,” Essayli repliedS “So you think you could judge a fair case and apply the evidence according to the instructions by prosecutors?”
“Absolutely,” Jackson said, adding that probation officials can be as objective and impartial in terms of a case as anyone, to a large extent, because they are “engaged in the trial daily”.
“But so is a prosecutor, so is a judge, so is a court clerk,” Esayli said. “So are many people involved in the justice system and are not released from the obligation of the jurors. So why should he be a probation officer? “
Assembly Rebecca Bauer-KahanA lawyer from San Ramon voted for a booking bill. She told the committee that she was worried that the release of too many classes of people from jurors could tilt criminal cases unfairly.
“This would change the balance of how this works in a way that I don’t think is insignificant to eliminate any specific categories of people,” ” she saidS “And this balance is important … (yes) Creating this fair trial of the jury. And so I think we have to do this cautiously. “
Support of trade unions; California courts are opposed
Along with the probation officials of the unions, the bill has support from organizations for reform of criminal justice, including Aclu California ActionWho claims that “the exclusion of California probation officials from the obligation of jurors will reduce the ghost of impracticality, reduce bias and strengthen the public confidence in the justice of the judicial processes and our judicial system,” according to the analysis of the bill.
One of the most influential civil servants of civil servants of state, district and municipal officials also keeps the accountS The Union and its affiliates, some of which represent probation officials, have spent at least $ 8.6 million in support of members of the 2015 legislature, according to Database of digital democracyS
However, California Judicial CouncilThe authority for the establishment of a state judicial system policy is opposed to all efforts to further reduce the number of people who are eligible for the duty of the jurors.
Prior to 1975, teachers, doctors, healers of faith, sailors, clergy, railway officers, lawyers, peacekeepers, telephone and telegraph operators, firefighters, military officials and dentists were released by jurors, according to the Council.
Then the legislature stopped freeing people in their profession and instead gave everyone the right to cite “unlawful difficulties” in order to request that he be released from the jurors’ service.
In the years thereafter, firefighters, nurses, judges and self -employed people, together with various types of law enforcement officers, have tried to do what the probation officers are trying to do this year, told the Judicial Council Committee.
“The Council … believes that the affirmative release of specific categories of persons reduces the number of jurors available, makes it difficult to choose representative court hearings and unfairly increases the weight of the jurors’ service on other segments of the population”, “” ” he saidS
