June 10, 2023 Breaking News, Latest News, and Videos

Non-Citizen Jurors In California’s Court’s Simply A Bad Idea:

It’s one thing to give undocumented immigrants an opportunity – however limited and lengthy and expensive – to gain American citizenship if they’ve lived and worked in this country for a long time while contributing and without committing any criminal offenses.

Drivers licenses for the undocumented also make some sense, especially since many law enforcement officials say that could compel those here illegally to obey laws requiring car insurance, thus cutting down the expenses of other drivers who may be involved in accidents with them.

But one bill that has passed the state Assembly and is now in the Senate simply makes no sense: Called AB 1401, this proposal would allow non-citizens to serve on juries in California’s state courts.

Never mind the longstanding American tradition of having a jury of the defendant’s peers determine whether criminal charges are valid. That’s merely a custom, not a constitutional right.

The Sixth Amendment says only that every American is entitled to an “impartial jury” and that its members should live in the state or district where the crime under consideration took place. Courts have interpreted this to mean jury pools should contain a cross section of the population of the area, in terms of gender, race and national origin.

No one yet has specified that jurors must be U.S. citizens, perhaps because at the time the Bill of Rights – the Constitution’s first ten amendments – was written in 1789 and finally ratified by the states two years later, it could be difficult to determine who was a U.S. citizen. Birth and immigration record-keeping was far from comprehensive.

But proving citizenship today is far easier, via birth certificates, passports and naturalization papers. So it’s fair to figure that if the Bill of Rights were being written today, it would specify that all jurors be citizens.

But the door to non-citizen jurors was left open a crack, and some Democratic state legislators now want to walk through it.

Juries, Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski of Fremont told a reporter the other day, “should reflect our community and our community is always changing. It’s time for California to be a leader on this.”

He said jury service for legal residents who are not citizens would also help ensure an adequate pool of jurors and help immigrants integrate into American society.

But suppose you are suing a used car dealer for selling you a vehicle with faulty brakes that caused an accident. Would you want a juror who’s a citizen of a county where such lawsuits are not possible? If you’ve been raped, would you want your accused assailant judged by a man from a country where women have few rights and are penalized for extramarital sex, even if it was forced on them?

Wieckowski is correct that immigrants often need time and training to adjust to American life and values. Should the guilt or innocence of any American be determined even in part by persons not completely familiar with this country’s values and customs?

In fact, customs vary by locale in a state as large as California, and the framers of the Constitution, who also wrote the Bill of Rights, knew that would be inevitable. It’s why they said juries must be local residents, not imports from faraway places.

There’s also the question of dilution of citizenship. There are already proposals (none has yet become law) to allow non-citizens to vote in some local elections. Non-citizens who have caused no trouble can qualify for easy passage through customs and immigration checkpoints via the federal Trusted Traveler and Global Entry programs.

If citizenship is no longer required for many of the duties and privileges it once conferred, does it lose some of its value? Is there any advantage to being a citizen over merely carrying a green card?

And especially, when the fate, freedom and fortune of any American citizen is at stake, why should anyone but another citizen help decide?

Condemning a person to prison or taking money from either a citizen or a corporation is a serious matter, not something for anyone with limited knowledge of either the English language or American ways to decide.

The bottom line: Like many other bills proposed in the Legislature and then disposed of, this is a terrible idea and ought to be consigned to the lawmaking trash can, the sooner the better.

in Opinion
Related Posts

Landmarks Commission Back From the Dead

June 2, 2023

June 2, 2023

For over three years, SMa.r.t. (Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow) has consistently warned that recently increased intense development...

SMa.r.t. Column: Improving Santa Monica’s Future: A Resident-Oriented Master Plan

May 28, 2023

May 28, 2023

Improving Santa Monica’s Future: A Resident-Oriented Master Plan Santa Monica, like many cities, requires a well-defined master plan to guide...

Pretext Stops Are a Vital Crime Prevention Tool

May 22, 2023

May 22, 2023

By Cody Green, Santa Monica Police Officers Association (SMPOA) Chairman and Lieutenant, SMPD  Recently the Santa Monica Public Safety Oversight...

Is City Government Listening to You?

May 21, 2023

May 21, 2023

Sometimes, it might feel like City Council members or local government staff aren’t paying attention to the concerns of residents....

New Program Can Help Protect Southern California Homes in the Event of an Earthquake

May 13, 2023

May 13, 2023

Residents Have Until May 31 To Apply For Seismic Retrofit Grants By Janiele Maffei, Chief Mitigation Officer for the California...

SMO (So Many Options) Part 1

April 20, 2023

April 20, 2023

SMart (Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow)  The volume of discussion around the options for Santa Monica Airport (SMO)...

SMa.r.t. Column: Reusing Buildings for the Benefit of All

April 2, 2023

April 2, 2023

[Almost two years ago our colleague Michael Jolly prepared this analysis of the benefits and risks of repurposing existing buildings,...

SMa.r.t. Column: I Told You So

March 28, 2023

March 28, 2023

On January17, 2015  SMa.r.t. posted a prophetic article in the Daily Press written by Ron Goldman FAIA advocating maintaining a...

Column: SB 9 Ended R-1 Zoning, but It’s Not Meeting Goals

March 11, 2023

March 11, 2023

By Tom Elias More than a year after it took effect, the landmark housing density law known as SB 9...

SMa.r.t. Column: The Urgency to Retrofit Earthquake-Deficient Buildings

March 6, 2023

March 6, 2023

Recent early-morning tremors off the Malibu coast, and the huge and terrible earthquake in Turkey and Syria have made us...

SMa.r.t. Column: ​​Reinforcing the Future – A Revisit

February 27, 2023

February 27, 2023

Six years go we discussed, in these pages, the city’s then-renewed earthquake-retrofit rules. At the time we argued that the...

Column: The Inevitable Conversions Begin Multiplying

February 25, 2023

February 25, 2023

By Tom Elias It’s a phenomenon from New York to Dallas to Fresno and Los Angeles, one that seemed inevitable...

Column: The Fantasy World of California Housing Policy

February 20, 2023

February 20, 2023

By Tom Elias If you’re looking for sure things among bills under consideration in the state Legislature, think of one...

SMa.r.t. Column: Santa Monica City Council – Planners, Politicians, or Developers?

February 19, 2023

February 19, 2023

Santa Monica – a progressive city 20 years ago, a chaotic city today! A city that is struggling for its...

SMa.r.t. Column: What’s Wrong With This Picture?

February 16, 2023

February 16, 2023

The picture shown above is the future of Santa Monica. Large tall buildings along the Boulevards and Avenues plus Downtown...