California Assembly passes bill allowing non-citizens to serve as jurors

[tsai3904]

The California Assembly passed a bill on Thursday that would make the state the first in the nation to allow non-citizens who are in the country legally to serve on jury duty.

Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski, D-Fremont, said his bill, AB1401, would help California widen the pool of prospective jurors and help integrate immigrants into the community.

It does not change other criteria for being eligible to serve on a jury, such as being at least 18, living in the county that is making the summons, and being proficient in English.

The bill passed 45-25 largely on a party-line vote in the Democratic-controlled Assembly and will move on to the Senate. One Democrat - Assemblyman Adam Gray, of Merced - voted no, while some other Democrats did not vote.

Democratic lawmakers who voted for the bill said there is no correlation between being a citizen and a juror, and they noted that there is no citizenship requirement to be an attorney or a judge. Republican lawmakers who opposed Wieckowski's bill called it misguided and premature.

More:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_XGR_IMMIGRANT_JURORS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-04-25-19-13-05

---------------------------------------

Update:

Governor Brown vetoed the bill:
http://gov.ca.gov/docs/AB_1401_2013_Veto_Message.pdf

[bolil]

Why not let everyone in on the joke?

[muh_roads]

We'll be policed by non-citizens soon.

[paulbot24]

Fighting over the "privilege" of jury duty is funny to me but this is ridiculous. What is wrong with fucking California?

[Humanae Libertas]

What is wrong with fucking California?

Everything.

[Anti Federalist]

Well, alrighty then, put the kibosh on the whole jury nullification dealy, now, didn't we?

[jclay2]

Maybe we should start running liberty candidates as Manchurian candidates. If this shithead can get into office, we might be in luck running someone on a turd sandwich platform only to have them reverse course for liberty. :confused:

[ghengis86]

Non-citizens already fight in "our" wars, why not let them decide "our" court cases too?

[SpicyTurkey]

We'll be policed by non-citizens soon.

Gaddafi mercenaries anyone?

[Brian4Liberty]

Maybe we should start running liberty candidates as Manchurian candidates. If this shithead can get into office, we might be in luck running someone on a turd sandwich platform only to have them reverse course for liberty. :confused:

He's in a city where a large number (maybe a majority) are not US citizens. Gotta fill those juries with someone. Maybe they'll vote for him if he gives them the vote too. Lol. Just kidding, they would never vote for this douche-bag when they get a chance to vote. He has the wrong last name.

[Philhelm]

We'll be policed by non-citizens soon.

I would consider that a foreign invasion and react accordingly with circular force continuum and no hesitation.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I actually wanted to go to jury duty but they didn't want me. I guess a criteria for being on a jury is to be biased in favor of the court's own bias.

[jkr]

TREASON!

[VanBummel]

We'll be policed by non-citizens soon.

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/401/4217245856sf6.jpg

[AFPVet]

Please tell me this is a belated April fools joke....

[Brian4Liberty]

Please tell me this is a belated April fools joke....

"So, you want to become a US citizen some day? Well, just sit here in this jury box and do what we say, and maybe we can put you on the list."

[fisharmor]

Can someone let me know what the material reason is for not allowing legally resident aliens to serve on juries?

[Keith and stuff]

Can someone let me know what the material reason is for not allowing legally resident aliens to serve on juries?
The government might have more control over them than citizens. So they might be more inclined to do what the government wants them to do. Since they are likely to have been in an area for less time than the average citizen, that might put them at a disadvantage. I'm sure there are patriotic reasons and such too. I'm just looking at it as it might mean more innocent people are found guilty.

[Noob]

next for California allowing non citizens to vote and be elected to public office?

[tsai3904]

Can someone let me know what the material reason is for not allowing legally resident aliens to serve on juries?

Read this and found it to be a good argument:


Jury service is not burdensome drudge work imposed by an overbearing government on an unwilling citizenry. Nor is it a favor that citizens do for their courts. To the contrary, it is a citizen's chief means of oversight on the judicial branch, allowing him or her not merely to help rule on the facts of a particular case but to keep tabs on the judge, the prosecutors, the public defenders and the court system itself. It's the place where citizens observe firsthand the effect of court budget cuts.

Just as citizens, and only citizens, have the power to elect their executive branch leaders and their delegates to the legislative branch, citizen jurors have the final check on at least some judicial branch decisions. Yes, we can vote judges out of office, but especially with a court system the size of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, it is difficult at best to know who they are and how they work. Jury duty, or rather jury service — or even better, jury power — is a reminder that the government works for us, and not the other way around.

That check on government is a right and a duty properly exercised by the sovereign, and in a democracy that means the citizens. Plenty of noncitizens make up our society, but citizenship is the norm, as it should be. And if we find that an overwhelming number of residents, workers and taxpayers are not citizens, it should not be seen as a signal to redistribute the powers of citizenship, but rather to step up the speed at which those who want to be fully incorporated into society are naturalized. AB 1401 is an interesting idea, but in the end it would move California in the wrong direction.

[Natural Citizen]

Non-citizens already fight in "our" wars, why not let them decide "our" court cases too?

Hey don't forget about free speech as well. Zuck wants to have them deciding what you can and cannot say on the web too. I had a link around here some place.

[Weston White]

Yes there is. Even still, there is a correlation between being a voter and becoming a juror—which is where the desire for this legislative act inevitably leads; to wit, permitting non-citizens a right to vote in California.


Moreover, practicing judges and attorneys are ABA members so they are at least familiar with the laws and duties of California and the United States, whereas, Mr. and Mrs. non-citizen are not.


Additionally, judges are (1) elected by vote, (2) required to take an oath, (3) attorneys represent only their paying clients who voluntarily entered into a contractual arrangement with them, and (4) prosecuting attorneys are required to be citizens as part of the condition of being a professional government employee:


CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 20 MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS

SEC. 3. Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and employees, executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:

"I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.

"And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means except as follows: __________________________________________________ ______________

(If no affiliations, write in the words "No Exceptions") and that during such time as I hold the office of ______________

________________________________ I will not advocate nor become (name of office) a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means."

And no other oath, declaration, or test, shall be required as a qualification for any public office or employment.

"Public officer and employee" includes every officer and employee of the State, including the University of California, every county, city, city and county, district, and authority, including any department, division, bureau, board, commission, agency, or instrumentality of any of the foregoing.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_20


Juries are to consist of one’s own ‘peers’ that are ‘impartial’ (Ergo, non-citizens are hardly equal to citizens and an individual awaiting approval for obtaining their citizenship is hardly going to remain impartial when matters involve the very government officials they are seeking that approval from), as stated within our U.S. Constitution, Amend. VI:


“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”
http://www.hdv.defendindependence.us/index.phtml?document=constitutional_amendments&query=amendment-VI


‘jury’ defined:

n. one of the remarkable innovations of the English common law (from the Angles and Saxons, but also employed in Normandy prior to the Norman Conquest in 1066), it is a group of citizens called to hear a trial of a criminal prosecution or a lawsuit, decide the factual questions of guilt or innocence or determine the prevailing party (winner) in a lawsuit and the amount to be paid, if any, by the loser. Once selected, the jury is sworn to give an honest and fair decision. The legal questions are determined by the judge presiding at the trial, who explains those issues to the members of the jury (jurors) in "jury instructions." The common number of jurors is 12 (dating back a thousand years), but some states allow a smaller number (six or eight) if the parties agree. For a plaintiff (the party suing) to win a lawsuit with a jury, three-quarters of the jurors must favor the claim. Guilt or innocence in a criminal trial requires a unanimous decision of the jury, except two states (Oregon and Louisiana) allow a conviction with 10 of 12 jurors. Juries have greatly changed in recent decades, as the term "impartial jury" in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution requires that the pool of jurors must include all races, ethnic groups and women as well as men in percentages relative to the general population. Any failure to achieve that balance or systematic challenges to those of the same ethnicity of the accused, may result in a claim on appeal that the jury was not fair-in popular jargon, not "a jury of one's peers." This does not mean that a Samoan male must be tried by other Samoan males, but it does mean that the potential jurors must come from a balanced group. Members of the jury are supposed to be free of bias, have no specific knowledge of the case and have no connection with any of the parties or witnesses. Questions are asked by the judge and attorneys (called "voir dire") during jury selection to weed out those whom they may challenge on those grounds (challenge for cause). Some potential jurors are challenged (peremptory challenge) because the attorney for one side or the other feels there is some hidden bias. In well-financed cases this has led to the hiring of jury "specialists" and psychologists by attorneys to aid in jury selection. In a high-profile criminal case in which the jury might be influenced by public comment or media coverage during trial, the court may order the jury be sequestered (kept in a hotel away from family, friends, radio, television and newspapers.)
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1076


‘jury of one's peers’ defined:

n. a guaranteed right of criminal defendants, in which "peer" means an "equal." This has been interpreted by courts to mean that the available jurors include a broad spectrum of the population, particularly of race, national origin and gender. Jury selection may include no process which excludes those of a particular race or intentionally narrows the spectrum of possible jurors. It does not mean that women are to be tried by women, Asians by Asians, or African Americans by African Americans.
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1079


Referencing precedent on a related matter is found in Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 634, 648-649 (1973): “… This Court has never held that aliens have a constitutional right to vote or to hold high public office under the Equal Protection Clause. Indeed, implicit in many of this Court's voting rights decisions is the notion that citizenship is a permissible criterion for limiting such rights. …”
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/413/634/case.html


Non-citizen’s have yet to have taken their required Oath of Allegiance and thereby are not yet legally bound to the America’s social contract (just imagine the endless possibilities this legislative act will provide for wreaking corruption throughout California case law): http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-11261/0-0-0-32547/0-0-0-32553.html#0-0-0-20447

[Natural Citizen]

//

[tsai3904]

The bill just passed both chambers. It is now headed to the Governor.

[Deborah K]

North American Union, here we come.....

[belian78]

This is just absolute lunacy.

[tsai3904]

Governor Brown vetoed the bill today. This is his veto message:


To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1401 without my signature.

Jury service, like voting, is quintessentially a prerogative and responsibility of citizenship. This bill would permit lawful permanent residents who are not citizens to serve on a jury. I don't think that's right.

Sincerely,
Edmund G. Brown Jr.

http://gov.ca.gov/docs/AB_1401_2013_Veto_Message.pdf

[JK/SEA]

''i don't THINK thats right''

sure glad he's got the legal mumbo jumbo rhetoric figured out.

[Dr.3D]

But when a non-citizen is arrested and goes to court, he needs a jury of his peers.


/sarc

[TaftFan]

Illegal.

How would Mexicans even understand what is going on anyways when English is being spoken?

[Keith and stuff]

It is cool that this was stopped but drivers licenses for illegals just passed in CA.


Illegal.

How would Mexicans even understand what is going on anyways when English is being spoken?

In Mexican schools, English is taught.