North Dakota passes juror-counseling bill, gains governor's signature
North Dakota is on the brink of establishing automatic access to posttrial counseling for jurors exposed to particularly distressing testimony and evidence. House Bill 1047 passed both legislative chambers on March 14, 2025. On March 17, the governor signed the bill and it has been filed with the secretary of state.
This initiative follows the model of similar legislation in Alaska but eliminates judicial discretion in determining eligibility—ensuring that all jurors who serve in qualifying cases areautomatically offered up to ten hours of psychological counseling.
Under the bill, jurors who serve on trials involving serious offenses such as murder, manslaughter, felony assault, sexual offenses, and child abuse will be eligible for freecounseling services. The support must be used within 180 days of trial completion and may beprovided by the court system, a state agency, or contracted services. This move represents a significant step toward recognizing the emotional toll of jury duty and providing structured mental health support.
This measure could serve as a model for other states considering similar reforms. Thedevelopment raises broader questions about how courts nationwide support jurors who experience trauma during service and whether additional jurisdictions will follow suit.
Those interested in reviewing the discussions can find committee hearings and floor session videos on the North Dakota Legislative Branch website by searching for the bill number under the "VIDEO" tab.
Officials refute claims of noncitizen voter jury disqualifications
In a “Fact Brief” the Arizona Center for Investigative Reporting reports that California officials have dismissed claims that nearly half a million registered voters were disqualified from jury duty in one year due to their noncitizen status. While approximately 450,000 residents have been excused from jury duty over similar time periods because they were not U.S. citizens, there is no evidence that these individuals were all registered voters.
Jury pools in California are drawn from multiple sources, not just voter registration databases. The state also selects potential jurors from tax records and driver’s license or stateidentification lists—neither of which require U.S. citizenship. Officials have consistently stated that there is no basis for claims that noncitizens were improperly registered to vote.
Like most U.S. jurisdictions, California requires jurors to be citizens, aligning with federal and state laws that also limit voting rights to U.S. citizens in federal elections and most state and local contests.
Michigan's pending jury reform legislation backed by decades of research
Michigan State University (MSU) law professors have spent more than a decade studying the impact of race on jury selection, and their work is now influencing pending jury reform legislation in Michigan’s House of Representatives.
The proposed reforms aim to make juries more inclusive by broadening the pool of eligiblejurors, eliminating felony exclusions, standardizing jury questionnaires, and adopting a one-step jury qualification process.
The research team at MSU, which has studied jury selection practices across multiple states, recently played a key role in a North Carolina ruling that found racial bias in jury selection and sentencing in death penalty cases. Their findings demonstrated a pattern of racial discrimination in jury selection, supporting the North Carolina Racial Justice Act and leading to the resentencing of several individuals.
Michigan’s proposed jury reforms reflect similar concerns about fairness and representation in the jury system. The MSU team’s extensive database—tracking peremptory challenges and jury selection patterns in capital cases—underscores the urgent need for change.
Bill seeks to exempt probation officers from jury duty
A new bill with strong bipartisan support could add sworn probation officers to the list of professionals exempt from criminal jury duty in California. Assembly Bill 387, which passed the assembly with a unanimous 67-0 vote, now moves to the state senate for further consideration.
Assembly bill sponsor Juan Alanis argues that pulling probation officers away from their duties could negatively impact individuals on probation. However, the Judicial Council of California opposes the measure, stating that current law already allows exemptions for undue hardship, including for those providing essential public services.
In addition to concerns about staffing disruptions, bill analysis suggests that probation officers—like other members of the criminal justice system—may have inherent biases when evaluating law enforcement conduct and criminal defendants. California law already exempts most police officers and sheriff’s deputies from jury duty, and this legislation would extend that exemption to another group of law enforcement professionals.