Massachusetts 2023-2024 Regular Session

Massachusetts House Bill H1651 Compare Versions

Only one version of the bill is available at this time.

Old	New	Differences
1	1	1 of 1
2	2	HOUSE DOCKET, NO. 2653 FILED ON: 1/19/2023
3	3	HOUSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No. 1651
4	4	The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
5	5	_________________
6	6	PRESENTED BY:
7	7	Jay D. Livingstone
8	8	_________________
9	9	To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in General
10	10	Court assembled:
11	11	The undersigned legislators and/or citizens respectfully petition for the adoption of the accompanying bill:
12	12	An Act addressing racial disparity in jury selection.
13	13	_______________
14	14	PETITION OF:
15	15	NAME:DISTRICT/ADDRESS :DATE ADDED:Jay D. Livingstone8th Suffolk1/19/2023 1 of 3
16	16	HOUSE DOCKET, NO. 2653 FILED ON: 1/19/2023
17	17	HOUSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No. 1651
18	18	By Representative Livingstone of Boston, a petition (accompanied by bill, House, No. 1651) of
19	19	Jay D. Livingstone relative to addressing racial disparity in jury selection. The Judiciary.
20	20	The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
21	21	_______________
22	22	In the One Hundred and Ninety-Third General Court
23	23	(2023-2024)
24	24	_______________
25	25	An Act addressing racial disparity in jury selection.
26	26	Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority
27	27	of the same, as follows:
28	28	1 Section 1. Chapter 234A of the General Laws is hereby amended by striking in clause 7
29	29	2in lines 50 and 51 the following language:-“has been convicted of a felony within the past seven
30	30	3years or”.
31	31	4 Section 2. Chapter 234A of the General Laws is hereby amended by inserting after
32	32	5Section 67d the following section:-
33	33	6 Section 67e: Improper Peremptory Challenge
34	34	7 a) In all jury trials, a party may object to the use of a peremptory challenge to raise the
35	35	8issue of improper bias. The court may also raise this objection on its own. The objection shall be
36	36	9made by simple citation to this rule, and any further discussion shall be conducted outside the
37	37	10presence of the panel. The objection must be made before the potential juror is excused, unless
38	38	11new information is discovered. 2 of 3
39	39	12 b) Upon objection to the exercise of a peremptory challenge pursuant to this rule, the
40	40	13party exercising the peremptory challenge shall articulate the reasons the peremptory challenge
41	41	14has been exercised.
42	42	15 c) The court shall then evaluate the reasons given to justify the peremptory challenge in
43	43	16light of the totality of circumstances. If the court determines that an objective observer could
44	44	17view race or ethnicity as a factor in the use of the peremptory challenge, then the peremptory
45	45	18challenge shall be denied. The court need not find purposeful discrimination to deny the
46	46	19peremptory challenge. The court should explain its ruling on the record.
47	47	20 d) In making its determination, the circumstances the court should consider include, but
48	48	21are not limited to, the following:
49	49	22 1) the number and types of questions posed to the prospective juror, which may include
50	50	23consideration of whether the party exercising the peremptory challenge failed to question the
51	51	24prospective juror about the alleged concern or the types of questions asked about it;
52	52	25 2) the number and types of questions posed to the prospective juror, which may include
53	53	26consideration of whether the party exercising the peremptory challenge failed to question the
54	54	27prospective juror about the alleged concern or the types of questions asked about it;
55	55	28 3) whether the party exercising the peremptory challenge asked significantly more
56	56	29questions or different questions of the potential juror against whom the peremptory challenge
57	57	30was used in contrast to other jurors;
58	58	31 4) whether other prospective jurors provided similar answers but were not the subject of a
59	59	32peremptory challenge by that party; 3 of 3
60	60	33 5) whether a reason might be disproportionately associated with a race or ethnicity; and
61	61	34 6) whether the party has used peremptory challenges disproportionately against a given
62	62	35race or ethnicity, in the present case or in past cases.
63	63	36 e) The following reasons are presumptively invalid reasons for a peremptory challenge:
64	64	37 1) having prior contact with law enforcement officers;
65	65	38 2) expressing a distrust of law enforcement or a belief that law enforcement officers
66	66	39engage in racial profiling;
67	67	40 3) having a close relationship with people who have been stopped, arrested, or convicted
68	68	41of a crime;
69	69	42 4) living in a high-crime neighborhood;
70	70	43 5) having a child outside of marriage;
71	71	44 6) receiving state benefits; and
72	72	45 7) not being a native English speaker.
73	73	46 f) If any challenge is based on the prospective juror’s conduct (i.e. sleeping; inattentive;
74	74	47staring or failing to make eye contact; exhibiting a problematic attitude, body language, or
75	75	48demeanor; or providing unintelligent or confused answers), that conduct must be corroborated by
76	76	49the judge or opposing counsel or the reason shall be considered invalid.