[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6641256,"mediaKeyId","2547271-eb9f315e14235980f62901ea54644447","parentId",2547271,"title","AB 387 approved by Judiciary committee to exempt probation officers from criminal jury selection","audioSeconds",1152,"startMs",4783000,"endMs",5935000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2547271-eb9f315e14235980f62901ea54644447&start=4783&end=5935","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2547271-eb9f315e14235980f62901ea54644447/thumbnail_4783000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6641256/California/AB-387-approved-by-Judiciary-committee-to-exempt-probation-officers-from-criminal-jury-selection","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6641256-65c74cd5fc133d70941655367e605783/orig.mp4?Expires=1770656205&Signature=FLA4NDpo3SdvUArVskZYqYTiZbZknZEyBCwHfeMYcfU-yPvxGFFRNcZ-Gg4jXAXttuz0J9k1PnaYb3vK40EK0lGcw2Sn0eFlsCk3Z~xJhbr8QvoNtzLmvQNzrSns9UA7Pdpg8QjLLht79BkGIGuGsr4WPQwsTUB-CV0NSbMby~2FhnkCmFFOccZSN4yhStVMh-8AkL-w-f4-aJMnFq3dU4~ZA4UNxvF4tyZnWEKCWGc5I12fmQIZkpbDZRLHxCeZfipNAn55KC~xx3fWyFCGPovwIJ9xBSQTc59wi4D6UnEg8dBYLWHb1Xd7W5Zfk~4hL9ISI9r0E-uzFgkttFRQyg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","California State Assembly","date","2025-03-11T00:00:00Z","article","AB 387, as amended to apply only to criminal trials, passed out of the Assembly Judiciary Committee after a hearing where probation department leaders, unions and other supporters argued that probation officers' routine role in the justice system disrupts court operations and that dismissals from jury pools are common. The Judicial Council urged opposition, arguing categorical exemptions shrink juror pools and make representative juries harder to assemble.

The bill's sponsor told the committee the measure would remove probation officers from the voir dire process because probation officers serve throughout the justice process—pretrial interviews, preparing reports judges rely on, supervising people on probation—and are often dismissed from jury service for those reasons. \"To us, it makes perfect sense because of the probation role that probation plays throughout the justice system and as an arm of the court,\" San Joaquin County Chief Probation Officer Steve Jackson testified. Jackson said removing probation officers from jury panels would reduce wasted time and allow officers to remain focused on supervision and court‑related duties.

Marie Rasul of the Judicial Council testified in opposition, saying the council \"must regretfully oppose Assembly Bill 387\" and that the council's longstanding policy opposes categorical exemptions because they reduce available jurors and can undermine representative juries. The Chair and several members traded questions about precedent, workload impacts and whether the change would unduly reduce juror diversity.

After debate and an amendment narrowing the bill to criminal cases, members voted to advance AB 387. Supporters said the change will reduce time probation officers spend waiting in courthouses and preserve supervision resources; opponents warned it could set a precedent for exempting other occupations from jury duty.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Assembly Judiciary Committee","oneSentenceSummary","The committee voted to advance AB 387, which would remove probation officers from criminal jury selection pools; supporters said the exemption saves court and probation resources, while the Judicial Council opposed the categorical exemption for jury pools.","taxTitle","California State Assembly, House, Legislative, California","taxId",17099,"location","California","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6641260,"AB 373 advances to Human Services to give foster youth aged 18–21 greater control over counsel's representation",951,3222000,4173000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2547271-eb9f315e14235980f62901ea54644447&start=3222&end=4173","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2547271-eb9f315e14235980f62901ea54644447/thumbnail_3222000.jpg","/articles/6641260/California/AB-373-advances-to-Human-Services-to-give-foster-youth-aged-1821-greater-control-over-counsels-representation","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6641260-822f31392e70c1356a374cd4769b6b63/orig.mp4?Expires=1770656205&Signature=GTjwhGRq-NX63mSW1An1os8YtIbJXrw7HAwi~OieSEGwxlLNGzJAfarVS1F6Ro74DNk25KJeJURwi02gRtCpXz~isnDjmPR-g5MMAae67WAsa-bVjFlNXMripkZGB-qBat8YKEHRypQ3zitNZk7FySQUSg5EyeJxUCsRWLc2ShyLw-T2RtDHdzXHkPQWTGJhDgAkWsf~lz~NoC5XwbAEMuucdJepWeqU6M063tIVj21ppqU10up5e5th26azgS9TwlxV-7TWGE~qOe6OTGbBGfmaSKSCeh6L5J3OD3jMhUyAF~qnQ09-wOdA0brs1AR6Ki-eu0KUTyKvFZZ5ZYciVA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","AB 373, introduced by Assemblymember Rubio, would clarify that court‑appointed counsel for non‑minor dependents—youth ages 18 to 21 who remain in foster care—must advocate the expressed wishes of those clients rather than substitute the attorney's judgment for the client. The Assembly Judiciary Committee voted to refer the bill to the Human Services Committee.

Supporters said the change reflects the legal adult status of non‑minor dependents in extended foster care and is intended to ensure attorneys meet regularly with clients and represent their stated preferences in court. \"Every youth in foster care deserves an attorney who not only knows their rights, but actively ensures their voice is heard and respected,\" Christopher Hernandez of California Youth Connection told the committee. Anne Quirk of the Children's Law Center of California said, \"This bill is very simple. It requires me as their attorney to respect that and not substitute my judgment for theirs.\"

Witnesses explained extended foster care is a voluntary program for people ages 18–20 who remain in the dependency system; testimony referenced Welfare and Institutions Code provisions (WIC 303) that clarify participants are adults with retained legal decision-making authority. Committee members asked how conflicting opinions between counsel and the client would be reconciled; witnesses and members stressed judges remain the ultimate decision-makers in dependency proceedings. The committee adopted the bill and referred it to Human Services for further consideration.","AB 373 would require counsel appointed for non‑minor dependents (ages 18–21) in dependency proceedings to represent their expressed wishes rather than substituting the attorney's judgment; the Judiciary Committee voted to refer the bill to Human Services.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6641265,"AB 250 advances out of Assembly Judiciary after survivors and advocates describe barriers to reporting sexual assault",2230,2226000,4456000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2547271-eb9f315e14235980f62901ea54644447&start=2226&end=4456","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2547271-eb9f315e14235980f62901ea54644447/thumbnail_2226000.jpg","/articles/6641265/California/AB-250-advances-out-of-Assembly-Judiciary-after-survivors-and-advocates-describe-barriers-to-reporting-sexual-assault","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6641265-b3ad1dbdb54611ef3a152d88b1905f67/orig.mp4?Expires=1770656205&Signature=FOcckCJBUjncOcANqtNmCoMAVWPmxx2PQOLLFpijT7gSulr5cBMpF-E3UXB~1bk6zVyb3cL4OkXa1MHG2cZZ42IuN0zQUdYOiC7oZ~KgMW2pweHeAsbbdkUNvC2ZtysALrGDGITPSV1WUDv7Tb5bK7P6-ID-NrcXQpF5vddZlVIAXOoV2hrFXLSjvQfw4soGxB6FpXepJWKV70YpMgOlo-sa~aZonyRks8IJdiXDzBVLudTPJJvmNZgo5hFyPmDNdi3FRi8vOcAdhK9DspqWVKtFX0hT5td7dstA42Qz0zQ7Ex-nGQ3WcabBezsO4Cd8UFOfsRZcIx0vfsHSZgTgkA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","AB 250, sponsored in the California State Assembly by Majority Leader Aguilar Curie, advanced from the Assembly Judiciary Committee to the Appropriations Committee following a hearing where survivors and advocacy groups asked lawmakers to expand survivors's ability to pursue civil claims and to hold both perpetrators and institutions that conceal assaults accountable.

Supporters said the bill recognizes that survivors often need years to come forward and that institutional cover-ups can prolong harm. Aguilar Curie told the committee AB 250 \"will strengthen protections for survivors of ****** assault and ensure the ability to fully access the justice system.\" Maya Alexander, a survivor and television producer who testified, described years of harassment and said she could not report because of nondisclosure agreements and fear of retaliation. \"This is how he ******** assaulted me twice,\" Alexander said in testimony; she urged the committee, \"please vote to give women like me our day in court.\" Jessica Stender of Equal Rights Advocates, a bill sponsor, told the committee, \"This bill sends a clear message. Individuals who commit ****** violence and those who enable or seek to conceal it will no longer be shielded.\"

Members asked whether the bill would apply to public employees. A staff witness and the bill's author explained the measure would amend an existing statute that currently applies to private entities and therefore does not include public employees; the author said prior versions that included the public sector were narrowed because of potential costs to public agencies. The Vice Chair expressed concern about singling out private employers and about evidentiary gaps in complaints that arise years after an alleged assault.

The hearing included multiple organizational supporters, including Victim Policy Institute, the California Employment Lawyers Association (co-sponsor), Equal Rights Advocates and Valor US. After testimony, the committee voted to refer AB 250 to the Appropriations Committee. The measure was placed on call to allow members who were absent to add their votes and was subsequently cleared from the call and forwarded to Appropriations.","The Assembly Judiciary Committee voted to refer AB 250 to the Appropriations Committee after survivors and advocacy groups testified that the bill would extend a survivor's time to seek civil remedies and hold institutions that conceal sexual assault accountable.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

AB 387 approved by Judiciary committee to exempt probation officers from criminal jury selection

AB 373 advances to Human Services to give foster youth aged 18–21 greater control over counsel's representation

AB 250 advances out of Assembly Judiciary after survivors and advocates describe barriers to reporting sexual assault