Unless I misunderstood a recent newspaper article, in September we vote on a constitutional amendment that reduces from 12 to 6 the number of jurors in a felony case. Is this correct? If so, what do you think of this change?

What is the point? Is it so hard to pick 12? Do some counties not have 12 people? If there is a felony joined in the case do we tell the first six jurors they are deciding the misdemeanor?

This bill amends CCP Art. 33.01 and states that in a trial of a misdemeanor offense tried in a district court, the jury shall consist of six jurors. I am unaware of any proposed constitutional amendment reducing the number of jurors in a felony case.

But what is the good government reason for the change?

Saves $36 bucks. Good guvmint in action.

John, we could debate the merits of having 12 jurors, unanimous verdicts, the number of peremptory strikes, etc. for quite a while. I guess the points in favor of this change are: it is presumably easier to convince 6 persons of a fact than 12; misdemeanors, wherever they are tried, do not merit 12-person juries; less jurors need to be summoned to find 6 who qualify than when 12 are required; less time is required in the selection of 6 jurors than 12, and so forth. Why should those engaging in official misconduct enjoy a benefit not given to any other person accused of a misdemeanor?

Someone already decided they should get a benefit when they decided such cases could go to a district court. Are we just saying that they should get the benefit of a district judge? Is he/she supposed to be a better judge? I assumed that the benefit was not the judge; it was the additional protection of a 12-person jury.

In the land of the constitutional county judge (although they are all well-informed in the law), the simple answer to your question is yes, they are at least getting a different quality of judge by moving upstairs. I do not know who adopted this scheme to begin with, or exactly why, but are you saying it should never be changed in any way?

I am not a fan of tinkering with the Code of Criminal Procedure in the absence of bad caselaw or a pattern of problems. I haven't heard that there is anything wrong with the manner in which official misconduct misdemeanors are handled in district court.

And, by the way, if I have a felony and misdemeanor joined in the district court. Do I need two juries, a 6 and a 12 member jury?

Ken is correct, the proposed change only affects misdemeanors tried in district courts.

My understanding is that HJR 44 and its companion bill were strictly a money-saving measure brought to the Legislature by a rural county with no statutory county court and with a constitutional county judge that was not a lawyer.
All misdemeanors in that county go to the district court, so they were trying to cut costs by paying 6 fewer jurors in their district court misdemeanors.

Like many bills this session, it had little to do with the merits of 6 jurors vs. 12 jurors.

[This message was edited by Shannon Edmonds on 07-21-03 at .]

So, does the bill apply only to that county, or do we now have a statewide solution to a local problem?

JB, the answer to that question, as is often the case, is the latter.

[This message was edited by John Rolater on 07-21-03 at .]