01/09/1985 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e and study any possible legal impacts and to address Ms. Ehrman's concerns. Councilor Wooten said she appreciated Mr. Gleason's recommendation but that the council wanted draft language to address Ms. Ehrman's recommendation. Ms. Ray commented that any additional time spent in cross-examination by the attorneys would negate any cost savings realized by the automated system. Councilor Holmer said he supported the deletion of the two sentences from subsection (3), stating that he was not persuaded by the staff argument. He said that staff could present its report the following week. Mr. Gleason said he was only suggesting that staff be allowed to study the issues before final action was taken by the council in order to address the consequences involved in the jury selection process. Councilor Schue commented that the council was in apparent agreement sup- porting the proposed automation process. She also stated that Ms. Ehrman had addressed an issue which required further study. In response to a question by Councilor Miller, Mr. Sercombe explained the present system of peremptory Challenges and Challenges for cause as allowed in the jury selection process. He said the proposed change will shorten the selection process by reducing the opportunity for attorneys to present case arguments. In response to a related question by Mr. Miller, Mr. Sercombe said that language could be added to the ordinance to allow attorneys to submit additional written questions to the judge during the selection process. Councilor Hansen said he would support adoption of the ordinance with the understanding that staff would present a report further addressing the jury selection issue. Councilor Wooten supported that position, adding that she also desired appropriate changes to the ordinance be drafted to accommodate Ms. Ehrman's suggestion. CB 2802--An ordinance concerning Municipal Court; amending Sections 2.785 and 2.790; repealing Sections 2.795; 2.800; 2.805; and 2.810 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. In response to a suggestion by Councilor Holmer, Mr. Sercombe stated that the Bar Association did not want the proposed ordinance published in its news- letter until it was adopted by the council. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0. Council Bill 2802 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance No. 19304). MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 9, 1985 Page 8