AB 387 approved by Judiciary committee to exempt probation officers from criminal jury selection

AB 387, as amended to apply only to criminal trials, passed out of the Assembly Judiciary Committee after a hearing where probation department leaders, unions and other supporters argued that probation officers— routine role in the justice system disrupts court operations and that dismissals from jury pools are common. The Judicial Council urged opposition, arguing categorical exemptions shrink juror pools and make representative juries harder to assemble.

The bill—s sponsor told the committee the measure would remove probation officers from the voir dire process because probation officers serve throughout the justice process—pretrial interviews, preparing reports judges rely on, supervising people on probation—and are often dismissed from jury service for those reasons. "To us, it makes perfect sense because of the probation role that probation plays throughout the justice system and as an arm of the court," San Joaquin County Chief Probation Officer Steve Jackson testified. Jackson said removing probation officers from jury panels would reduce wasted time and allow officers to remain focused on supervision and court‑related duties.

Marie Rasul of the Judicial Council testified in opposition, saying the council "must regretfully oppose Assembly Bill 387" and that the council—s longstanding policy opposes categorical exemptions because they reduce available jurors and can undermine representative juries. The Chair and several members traded questions about precedent, workload impacts and whether the change would unduly reduce juror diversity.

After debate and an amendment narrowing the bill to criminal cases, members voted to advance AB 387. Supporters said the change will reduce time probation officers spend waiting in courthouses and preserve supervision resources; opponents warned it could set a precedent for exempting other occupations from jury duty.