01/09/1985 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e VIII. ORDINANCE REGARDING MUNICIPAL COURT AMENDMENT {memo, ordinance distributed City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Municipal Court Operations Manager Peggy Ray presented the staff report, briefly reviewing the January 2, 1985, memorandum from the City Manager to the City Council which described the ordinance language addressing the proposed changes in the jury management system. Councilor Ehrman commented that local attorneys may question the proposed examination of jurors solely by the judge as performed in the Federal courts since it is less flexible than the present system in which the attorneys are entitled to two peremptory challenges. City Attorney Tim Sercombe responded that the proposed change would shorten the juror selection process by eliminating the opportunity for attorneys to present part of their case during the selection period. He aCknowleged Ms. Ehrman's comment that the proposed process would reduce the direct contact between the attorneys and the jurors and would eliminate the opportunity for follow-up questions. In response to a question by Councilor Hansen, Mr. Sercombe said the draw system and juror interview selection process could be separated into two separate issues for action by the council. Although he said he was not sure of trends throughout the state, he commented that the proposed process would allow the juror selection process to be automated. Mr. Gleason commented that the average duration of Municipal Court trials had been reduced from 160 to 90 days in response to a council direction the previous year. He recommended that a staff report be prepared to address the possibility of a different jury selection process. In response to a question by Councilor Wooten, Ms. Ehrman said her only con- cern was with the reduced opportunity for the cross-examination of the jurors by the attorneys. Mayor Obie said the traditional process was for the legal staff to draft any necessary changes for approval by the council. Mr. Sercombe commented that some expediency was needed because the City had to select juries for January and February. Ms. Ehrman said her amendment would be to retain the present jury selection process until a staff report could be presented. Mr. Gleason suggested that the council adopt the ordi- nance as recommended, stating that staff could later present a report and provide an opportunity for amendment. Ms. Ehrman said she would present the ordinance under those conditions. Ms. Ray suggested specifying that the judge would decide the jury selection process on a case-by-case basis. Ms. Ehrman disagreed with that language, stating that it would not be a consistent process. In response to a question by Councilor Miller, Ms. Ehrman said her major concern was that a jury selection process different from that used by Lane County would cause problems. She added that many of the local practicing attorneys had not been notified of the proposed change. In response to a question by Councilor Hansen, she said she was recommending that the first two sentences of Section 2.790 (3) be deleted. Mr. Gleason commented that time and cost consequences were involved in the ordinance. He recommended that the council adopt the ordinance and set an agenda time to discuss the jury selection process issue. He said this would allow staff to determine MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 9, 1985 Page 7