Erickson v. Superior Court of Placer Cty.

1 In pertinent part, Court Ops Memo No. 75 reads: “Code of Civil Procedure section 206.237 was amended in 1995 (SB 508) requiring the court to seal all record of personal juror identifying information at the conclusion of a criminal jury proceeding. It is the policy and procedure of the Placer County Superior and Municipal Courts to follow the same procedure for both criminal and civil jury trials. “Procedure “1. Jury Services prepares two random lists for each department. One random for the judge and one for the clerk. “2. Roll call is taken by the clerk, no attorneys or parties present and off the record. The prospective jurors oath is administered to the prospective jury panel prior to hardship screening and completion of juror questionnaire. “3. Clerk/judge - initial hardships on the record (in some departments), outside of the presence of attorneys and parties. “4. Remaining jurors are given a juror number badge to wear, see sample attached. . . . Clerk records that number on the random list next to the appropriate name. Jurors will be known by this number for the remainder of the trial. “5. Questionnaires are completed, juror uses the assigned number instead of name at the top of the questionnaire. Using the random list, the clerk fills the jury box by calling the assigned numbers as recorded on the random list. . . . The juror questionnaire forms will not be signed by prospective jurors. “6............................ “7. If a petition for access to juror personal identifying information is received, the court shall give all potentially affected jurors at least 15 days notice of the hearing date and an opportunity to oppose the unsealing of juror personal identifying information.” (Emphasis in original text.) We are mystified by respondent court’s comment: “Ct. Ops. Memo #75 does not mandate juror anonymity ... but merely controls some of the procedures and paper trail with respect to the court’s jury selection system.” The procedure adopted by respondent court unequivocally bars parties, counsel and others from access to juror identifying information, absent granting of a petition for access to that information.

2 Contrary to respondent court’s claims, requiring anonymous juries in a civil and criminal trials is not “complimentary [¿ic] to the mandate of C.C.P. § 237(b) [sic].” The impetus for the amendment to Code of Civil Procedure section 237 was concern for the protection of jurors in criminal trials from postverdict harassment: “The purpose with respect to this bill is to protect jurors from dangerous, threatening, or harassing investigations.” (Assem. Com. on Public Safety, 3d reading analysis of Sen. Bill No. 508 (1995-1996 Reg. Sess.) June 6, 1995, p. 3.) Similarly, “[t]he [bill’s] sponsor[, the Attorney General,] states that this bill is necessary because there have been incidents when a defendant has received information about the jurors and has harassed or threatened them, by mail, from prison.” (Ibid.)

3 We note that respondent court does not purport to have complied with the requisites for promulgation of a local rule. (See Gov. Code, § 68070; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 981; Simmons v. City of Pasadena (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1 , 5 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 102 ].) Respondent court states Court Ops Memo No. 75 is not a local rule, but merely an “internal management tool” because it directs conduct of the court and does not “affect the substantive rights of the parties nor mandate any procedures which the parties or attorneys must follow.” However, the procedure adopted by respondent court bars parties, counsel and others from access to juror identifying information. Moreover, the Placer County Local Rules are replete with rules directing the conduct of the court and its staff (see, e.g., Cal. Rules of Court, rule 981(b); Placer County Local Rules, rules 10.9, 10.12, 20.1.8(E), 20.1.13, 40.4(B)(2).)