Recently, our office was informed by DPS that we could no longer run a CCH on potential jurors through their database. They claim this is not a permissible use of their TCIC/NCIC system. Any thoughts on this?

I am shocked by DPS' refusal to do this. Has anyone else had this problem?

When I attended DPS training for TCIC users, the trainer specifically addressed the issue of juror / venire member CCH's. The position of the DPS trainer at that time was that CCH's should be run for EVERY potential juror - she recounted a couple of stories involving jurors who were disqualified (because of a felony or theft conviction), later resulting in reversal of the conviction of the defendant. In practice, I have not seen a judge order the state to run a CCH and disclose any felony / moral turpitude findings.

Did DPS provide a legal basis for their position?

In the NCIC/TCIC Terminal Operator Handbook (dated 1/04), I see on p. 26 that "Jury Member" is listed as a legitimate purpose for requesting data (Purpose Code C - administration of criminal justice).

Upon further discussions with DPS and my staff, it looks like there was a miscommunication. Running a CCH on a potential juror is a permissible use of their system.

Thanks for your help.

The following is from the letter that is sent by Crime Records Bureau to prosecutors regarding checking a juror's cch:

"This letter is in response to your correspondence concerning the use of the Texas Law Enforcement Telecommunications System to access criminal history record information (CHRI) on prospective jurors. TLETS was designed and funded for use by criminal justice agencies in conducting their lawfully authorized duty of administering criminal justice. In furtherance of this purpose, TLETS policy interprets the �administration of criminal justice� to include the prosecution of accused persons or criminal offenders. Therefore, TLETS may be used by criminal justice agencies to conduct criminal background checks on prospective jurors that have been impaneled from the jury pool."

Hope this helps answer the questions.

Janette A

"Prospective jurors who have been impaneled from the jury pool" is quite a confusing phrase. Once empaneled, a juror is no longer prospective. And waiting until then to check for a criminal history (disqualification) is a bit late (and impractical). So what was intended to be said? I guess the reference is to the big city "central jury pool" and not the 200 which are summoned for our jury week.

Crime Records Bureau suggest that if prosecutors have questions about getting a CCH done on a prospective juror, they check with their TCIC trainer.

Janette A

It seems to me to be a huge violation of one's privacy! If you cannot even ask a juror if they are a felon (or any one of the disqualifiable offenses under TRCP 230), then it seems to me that you cannot run a CCH on a prospective juror.

The justification used by DPS (administration of criminal justice) seems very tenuous, at best.

I would sue if this was done to me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RTC:
It seems to me to be a huge violation of one's privacy! If you cannot even ask a juror if they are a felon (or any one of the disqualifiable offenses under TRCP 230), then it seems to me that you cannot run a CCH on a prospective juror.

The justification used by DPS (administration of criminal justice) seems very tenuous, at best.

I would sue if this was done to me.

---

Sue for what?

Who says you can't ask a venire-person whether they have been convicted of felony or theft or under indictment for a felony?

How can this be a violation of a right to privacy? One has no right to privacy in the fact that one has been convicted of a crime.

If ascertaining whether a potential juror is in fact a crook IS NOT part of the administration of justice, to ensure a fair trial for the State of Texas, then maybe I need a different job.

So it's proper for me to ask a venire member if she's ever been the victim of a sexual assault or any number of other excruciatingly personal questions, but checking to see if she has, say, a misdemeanor marijuana conviction somehow violates her privacy? That logic escapes me. I think I side with DPS and will keep running the CCH.

I'm with you guys, I think its totally permissible, but do your judges really give you the time to run everyone on the panel for every case ??!!

I guess my confusion derives from how "impanel" is defined. One dictionary says: "list people as possible jurors: to draw up a list of people to be selected for jury service." I have always considered those folks to have been summoned, not impaneled. In any event, this use of a CCH is clearly "for purposes of law enforcement." Jurors are legitimately confused about their qualifications as a result of prior court proceedings and this is one way to try to prevent a disqualified juror from participating.

When I made my response I just happened to recall Tex. R. Civ. P. 230 which specifically prohibits you from asking these kinds of questions. Obviously the TRCPs don't apply to criminal cases, but that was what I was thinking of when I made my reply. One would think that people would be offended to learn that the Govt. was conducting secret background checks into the juror's private, personal lives. In the short time that I've spent thinking about this I could find no definitive case law one way or the other, but I am sure something is out there. But my response was based on a quick recollection of TRCP 230.

Well, for whatever it's worth, as GG noted above, one's criminal history is not a part of one's "private, personal" life. If someone on a DWI panel is offended that I checked and found out they had a prior DWI conviction, well...I can live with that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stacey L. Brownlee:
I'm with you guys, I think its totally permissible, but do your judges really give you the time to run everyone on the panel for every case ??!!

---

I guess our judges are fairly generous when it comes to voir dire, but even then it requires some frantic scrambling and the invaluable help of able staff. But I've gotten to where I don't feel right if I haven't done it.

I'm with you Tim. Can't imagine not having access to the CCHs.
How many times has this scenario played out:
Prosecutor: Mr. Smith, I hate to ask you this, but I know you told us that you've never been in any trouble but my records are showing a man with your name, your DOB, your social, and your drivers license # as having been convicted of felony theft in 1991. Can you help me understand that?
Mr. Smith: Oh, that? I didn't think that question on your form there meant that kind of a deal. I didn't go to prison or anything.
Challenge granted, mistrial/reversal averted.

We run prospective juror CCH's on death penalty cases, but generally do not do so on non-death penalty cases. Two questions: 1. as a practical matter, how long is it taking most people to run 60 to 70 juror CCH's in the 2 to 3 hour period that a non-death voir dire takes; and 2. has anyone encountered a defense motion or judge's order to provide defense counsel the same CCH information that the State is using for jury selection, and if so, how did it turn out?

In most of the cases we prepare for trial, particularly capital cases or "simple" murders, the defense will ask for (demand) the criminal histories of the State's witnesses -- and that doesn't mean only the inmates, it includes guards, wardens, nurses, chaplains, etc. To determine that, we have to run CCHs and we don't even ask the witnesses' permission!
Also, if any of you other lazy investigators like myself have had to work cold murder cases or lukewarm murder cases or even fresh murder cases, have you ever run CCHs on leads provided to you by Crimestoppers or snitches or regular witnesses? And some of those leads are even innocent, law-abiding citizens of all things. And I've never called one of those suspects and asked for permission to run them.
But, you sometimes find out that they are law-abiding by, watch it now, running their criminal histories.
Maybe I need to be sued, or even fired might be nice, or maybe banished, but please don't take my banjo or suspend me from the TDCAA Forums!