Texas House Bill HB1665

Texas 2009 - 81st Regular

• Out of House Committee: 5/8/09
• Voted on by House: 5/17/09
• Out of Senate Committee: 5/23/09
• Voted on by Senate: 5/25/09
• Governor Action: 6/19/09
• Enrolled: 5/30/09
• Passed: 6/19/09

Caption

Relating to the penalty imposed on defaulting jurors.

Impact

The alterations outlined in HB 1665 would impact Texas laws related to jury selection and legal responsibilities of jurors. By raising fines for noncompliant jurors, the bill indicates an attempt to strengthen the judicial process by incentivizing attendance. The increase in penalties aligns with a broader legislative focus on ensuring that jurors take their duties seriously, which is crucial for the smooth operation of the court system. As a result, jurors may face more serious repercussions for their absence, potentially leading to increased compliance with jury summonses.

Summary

House Bill 1665 proposes an amendment to the penalties imposed on jurors who fail to attend court after being lawfully summoned, or file false claims of exemption. The bill seeks to increase the minimum and maximum fines a juror can incur for noncompliance. Specifically, it changes existing penalties from a range of $10 to $100 to a new range of $100 to $1,000, which is a significant increase aimed at reinforcing the importance of jury service in maintaining the judicial system's functionality. This shift intends to deter jurors from neglecting their obligations and to improve court attendance overall.

Contention

Notable points of contention surrounding HB 1665 include the implications of increased financial penalties on individuals who genuinely struggle to attend due to legitimate reasons. Critics of the bill may argue that the elevated fines could disproportionately affect lower-income individuals, who may face challenges fulfilling jury duties due to financial strain, employment obligations, or personal circumstances. Thus, there may be discussions within legislative forums regarding balancing the need for compliance with the need for equitable treatment of jurors. Furthermore, the effectiveness of financial penalties as a deterrent remains a topic of debate among lawmakers.