Another professional group of California wants a free pass of the jury’s duty. This legislator says no

This story was originally posted by CALMATTERAS. Register For your newsletters.

Modesto Assemblymember Juan Alanis He is a former sergeant of the Sheriff. Corona Assembly Bill essayli He is a former federal and federal prosecutor. The two Republicans agree many things when it comes to crimes and courts.

But Essayli informed Alanis last week that he firmly opposes the project of Alanis who would give the county probation officers a permanent pass to leave the jury for criminal cases. Trustial officers unions are defending Entry Law Project 387Since they think that their members should have the same rights as police officers and sheriff agents to avoid jury service.

But Essayli, who has prosecuted more than 20 criminal trials in his career, said that probation officers should not be different from any other Californian.

“If we go down this path, today, they are probation officers.” He told the Judicial Committee of the Assembly last week. “Tomorrow, they are employees of the Court, and then they will be public prosecutors and defenders and judges and probably politicians.” Alanis’s bill advanced 11-1 of his first hearing, with essays by issuing the only “no” vote. The bill advanced Thursday from the floor of the Assembly to the California Senate without anyone voting against. However, 13 members did not vote on the measure, including Essayli. As Calmatters has reportedNot the vote tells the same as voting “no.” Legislators regularly dodge vote on controversial measures to avoid angry influential political groups or offend their colleagues.

For years, several professional groups and unions have tried to ensure that the legislature grants its members a pass of the mandatory jury duty. Probation officers expect their last attempt to end in a different way than what it did in 2018 when Gov then. Jerry Brown vetoed a similar bill.

“The jury service is a fundamental obligation of citizenship”, Brown wrote. “I am not willing to expand the list of exempt simply for their occupation.”

Probation officers supervise young criminal criminals and adults who have been sentenced to probation instead of jail or prison. They manage County Youth Detention facilities. The probation departments regularly provide the courts with reports about accused for judges and lawyers to consider during criminal procedures. Officials also work with local law agents on various crime prevention initiatives, and play a role in efforts to put criminals in professional training and other reform programs.

Alanis told the Judicial Committee that the mandatory jury service moves the probation officers of these works, sometimes for days. This, Alanis said, leaves “accused without supervision or inexplicable for prolonged periods” while the officers wait to be fired. He said that it is rare that they really end up in a jury because his works are considered too favorable for the Prosecutor’s Office.

“The simple presence of a probation officer as a potential jury can create a bias perception among the defendants, lawyers, even jury colleagues, potentially undermining the trust and equity of a trial,” he said. “In some cases … they can be directly familiar with the people involved in the case.”

The legislator initially proposed to exempt the probation officers from the entire jury service, including civil cases. The latest version only refers to criminal jurors.

The probation officer faces the grill

St. Joaquin County probation Director, Steve Jackson, He told the committee “Keep eligible is just a wasteful time for the courts.”

Essayli did not buy Alanis and Jackson’s arguments. Azó Jackson as if the probation officer were a potential jury sitting in a jury box. “You are not saying that probation officers are partial, so they could not serve in a jury, right?” Essayli asked.

“No, sir.”

“OK,” Essayli replied. “So you think a case could judge a lot and apply the evidence as indicated by prosecutors?”

“Absolutely,” said Jackson, added that probation officers can be so objective and impartial about a case like anyone, in large part because they are “involved daily with the judicial process.”

“But so is a prosecutor, so is a judge, so is an employee of the court,” said Essayli. “Then, many people are involved in the justice system, and are not exempt from the jury’s duty.