(CN) - It's been called both a "modest proposal" and a "win-win"- a bill that proposes cutting back the number of peremptory challenges in misdemeanor trials in California from 10 to 6. But what's been touted as a time- and cost-saving measure for the courts has also pitted trial judges against local public defenders, defense attorneys and other critics who say the measure won't accomplish what it claims.
"I think the bill is a solution in search of a problem. It's being touted as a time-saving measure but in practice, it will actually result in more time being used to choose juries," San Francisco Pubic Defender Jeff Adachi said in a phone interview. "Reducing the number of challenges in fact will take more time because we'll have to spend more time debating whether a juror should be removed for cause."
SB 213, authored by state Sen. Marty Block, D-San Diego, is widely supported by members of the California Judges Association, the longstanding professional group representing judges up and down the state. It is also supported by the Judicial Council, the rulemaking body for California's courts.
"It's a modest proposal of common sense reform that will really help the courts," CJA president Judge Joan Weber of San Diego said in an interview. "The trial courts have been under siege with the budget crisis and we have been asked by the Legislature and the governor to come up with efficiencies in the way we do court operations to assist us in doing our job faster and more efficiently without violating due process."
She added, "We think the public is going to appreciate this. We get feedback all the time from jurors sitting on a petty theft case from Walmart and they complain, 'Why is it taking a day and a half to pick the jury?' "
Unlike challenges for cause, peremptory challenges allow an attorney to reject a potential juror without stating a reason. And the idea of cutting them down doesn't sit well with defense attorneys like Matt Gonzalez, the chief attorney for the San Francisco Public Defender's office.
Gonzalez said peremptory challenges help ensure a fair trial for criminal defendants. "The cause challenge system isn't working and it hasn't been working since 1991," Gonzalez told the Senate Judiciary Committee at a recent hearing. "It's not working because attorneys get 15 or if they're lucky, 30 minutes to question jurors about potential bias. That's about a minute for each juror."
He added that judges will often deny cause challenges if a potential juror says he or she can be fair, despite past experiences that might color their view of the case.
"Peremptory challenges are important because it allows attorneys to do what the judges are no longer doing," Gonzalez said.
At that same Senate committee hearing Ignacio Hernandez, lobbyist for the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, said constitutional rights should not be exchanged for efficiency.
"I support court funding, but having an efficiency that is focused on the rights of criminal defendants and the ability to get a fair trial is the last place we should go," Hernandez said. "Taking away peremptory challenges runs the risk at that moment when it's most critical, that you may not get an unbiased jury. It may not be efficient for judges. Well I'm sorry, that's their job."