Juries: peremptory challenges.

Senator Umberg’s measure would extend the peremptory-challenge prohibition—already established for jury selection in criminal cases and set to lapse for civil cases—in an indefinite fashion, applying it to civil trials in California and covering civil-rights-related actions, civil commitments, and civil-damages actions arising from hate crimes, among other civil matters. The measure would also require the party asserting applicability to notify the court and the other parties that these procedures apply in those civil cases.

Key mechanisms govern how objections are evaluated and how remedies are structured. After a party objects to a peremptory challenge under the targeted protections, further discussion occurs outside the presence of the panel, and the objection must be raised before the jury is impaneled unless information could not have been known earlier. The court would evaluate the stated reasons using the totality of the circumstances, sustaining the objection if there is a substantial likelihood that an objectively reasonable person would view the challenged peremptory challenge as related to a protected characteristic or perceived membership, even without a showing of purposeful discrimination. The standard recognizes unconscious bias as part of the assessment, and the court would consider a range of factors, including the relationship between the objecting party and the challenged juror, questioning patterns, and whether similar responses by non-challenged jurors were treated differently. If the objection is sustained, remedies may include quashing the jury venire and starting over, declaring a mistrial and selecting a new jury, seating the challenged juror, providing additional challenges, or other cure as the court deems appropriate; appellate review of the denial would proceed on a de novo basis with the trial court’s factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence.

The measure includes an explicit intent clause and a severability provision. It states that enactment should not lower the standard for judging challenges for cause or expand their use, and it preserves the ability to remove invalid provisions without invalidating the remainder. In civil cases subject to the enhanced protections, the party bringing the claims must notify the court and other parties after the final status conference (or, if no such conference exists, at least 15 calendar days before trial) that the procedures apply. Additionally, the bill constrains the court’s consideration of a party’s use of peremptory challenges to situations where the counsel or their office is a public entity, thereby limiting retrospective review to public-counsel contexts.