Massachusetts 2025-2026 Regular Session

Massachusetts House Bill H1903 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. 2263 FILED ON: 1/15/2025
3	3	HOUSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No. 1903
4	4	The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
5	5	_________________
6	6	PRESENTED BY:
7	7	John Francis Moran
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:John Francis Moran9th Suffolk1/15/2025 1 of 3
16	16	HOUSE DOCKET, NO. 2263 FILED ON: 1/15/2025
17	17	HOUSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No. 1903
18	18	By Representative Moran of Boston, a petition (accompanied by bill, House, No. 1903) of John
19	19	Francis Moran relative to addressing racial disparity in jury selection. The Judiciary.
20	20	[SIMILAR MATTER FILED IN PREVIOUS SESSION
21	21	SEE HOUSE, NO. 1651 OF 2023-2024.]
22	22	The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
23	23	_______________
24	24	In the One Hundred and Ninety-Fourth General Court
25	25	(2025-2026)
26	26	_______________
27	27	An Act addressing racial disparity in jury selection.
28	28	Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority
29	29	of the same, as follows:
30	30	1 Section 1. Chapter 234A of the General Laws is hereby amended by striking in clause 7
31	31	2in lines 50 and 51 the following language:-“has been convicted of a felony within the past seven
32	32	3years or”.
33	33	4 Section 2. Chapter 234A of the General Laws is hereby amended by inserting after
34	34	5Section 67d the following section:-
35	35	6 Section 67e: Improper Peremptory Challenge
36	36	7 a) In all jury trials, a party may object to the use of a peremptory challenge to raise the
37	37	8issue of improper bias. The court may also raise this objection on its own. The objection shall be
38	38	9made by simple citation to this rule, and any further discussion shall be conducted outside the 2 of 3
39	39	10presence of the panel. The objection must be made before the potential juror is excused, unless
40	40	11new information is discovered.
41	41	12 b) Upon objection to the exercise of a peremptory challenge pursuant to this rule, the
42	42	13party exercising the peremptory challenge shall articulate the reasons the peremptory challenge
43	43	14has been exercised.
44	44	15 c) The court shall then evaluate the reasons given to justify the peremptory challenge in
45	45	16light of the totality of circumstances. If the court determines that an objective observer could
46	46	17view race or ethnicity as a factor in the use of the peremptory challenge, then the peremptory
47	47	18challenge shall be denied. The court need not find purposeful discrimination to deny the
48	48	19peremptory challenge. The court should explain its ruling on the record.
49	49	20 d) In making its determination, the circumstances the court should consider include, but
50	50	21are not limited to, the following:
51	51	22 1) the number and types of questions posed to the prospective juror, which may include
52	52	23consideration of whether the party exercising the peremptory challenge failed to question the
53	53	24prospective juror about the alleged concern or the types of questions asked about it;
54	54	25 2) the number and types of questions posed to the prospective juror, which may include
55	55	26consideration of whether the party exercising the peremptory challenge failed to question the
56	56	27prospective juror about the alleged concern or the types of questions asked about it;
57	57	28 3) whether the party exercising the peremptory challenge asked significantly more
58	58	29questions or different questions of the potential juror against whom the peremptory challenge
59	59	30was used in contrast to other jurors; 3 of 3
60	60	31 4) whether other prospective jurors provided similar answers but were not the subject of a
61	61	32peremptory challenge by that party;
62	62	33 5) whether a reason might be disproportionately associated with a race or ethnicity; and
63	63	34 6) whether the party has used peremptory challenges disproportionately against a given
64	64	35race or ethnicity, in the present case or in past cases.
65	65	36 e) The following reasons are presumptively invalid reasons for a peremptory challenge:
66	66	37 1) having prior contact with law enforcement officers;
67	67	38 2) expressing a distrust of law enforcement or a belief that law enforcement officers
68	68	39engage in racial profiling;
69	69	40 3) having a close relationship with people who have been stopped, arrested, or convicted
70	70	41of a crime;
71	71	42 4) living in a high-crime neighborhood;
72	72	43 5) having a child outside of marriage;
73	73	44 6) receiving state benefits; and
74	74	45 7) not being a native English speaker.
75	75	46 f) If any challenge is based on the prospective juror’s conduct (i.e. sleeping; inattentive;
76	76	47staring or failing to make eye contact; exhibiting a problematic attitude, body language, or
77	77	48demeanor; or providing unintelligent or confused answers), that conduct must be corroborated by
78	78	49the judge or opposing counsel or the reason shall be considered invalid.