Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Judge Did Not Coerce Waiver at LPS Hearing By Telling of Nine-Month Delay for Jury Trial
Feuer Says That Where Not Justified by Pandemic, Due Process Concerns Arise From Such Delays
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A woman who was facing the prospect of a continuation of her conservatorship based on mental illness was not deprived of her right to a jury trial by virtue of being told by the judge that she could have a bench trial that day or have a jury determine her fate in nine months, the Court of Appeal for this district decided on Friday.
The opinion by Justice Gail Ruderman Feuer of Div. Seven affirms a Feb. 4 order by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Lisa R. Jaskol reappointing a conservator, under the Lanterman-Petris-Short (“LPS”) Act for a woman Joanne R.
Feuer commented:
“Although we are concerned by the delay in providing conservatee jury trials during the COVID-19 pandemic, we conclude there was no violation of Joanne’s statutory right to a jury trial.
“However, we caution the superior court that a nine-month delay for a conservatee to have a jury trial where the conservatorship would otherwise end in a year, absent a health emergency, raises serious constitutional concerns in light of the significant liberty interests at stake. A conservatee’s right to a jury trial has little meaning if the conservatee can only exercise that right after spending nine months of a one-year term in a custodial setting.”
She noted that at oral argument, the conservatee’s lawyer mentioned that even before the pandemic, jury trials in LPS cases were delayed in excess of the four-month wait decried in a June 18, 2020 opinion in Conservatorship of Jose B. That opinion was also authored by Feuer.
“We urge the superior court to dedicate the necessary additional resources to LPS jury trials so that conservatees may exercise their right to a jury trial in a timely manner,” she said in Friday’s opinion. “Failure to do so likely violates a conservatee’s constitutional right to due process.”
Feb. 4 Hearing
The conservatee was advised by Jaskol at the Feb. 4 hearing, which she attended by telephone, of the choice she had to make between a bench trial and a trial by jury and told of the respective time frames. She told the judge:
“Well, I would prefer a jury trial, but I don’t want to wait until November. I want to do it as soon as possible.”
Jaskol counseled her to talk with her attorney. She did, and opted for an immediate bench trial.
On appeal, she argued that Jaskol coerced her into waiving a jury which, she asserted, rendered the waiver involuntary under the authority of the California Supreme Court’s 2001 opinion in People v. Collins.
There, then-Chief Justice Ronald M. George said:
“We conclude that the waiver of a jury trial obtained by a trial court’s assurance of an unspecified benefit is not a valid waiver, and that this error compels reversal of defendant’s conviction.”
Case Is Inapposite
Feuer wrote:
“Unlike Collins, the trial court did not offer to reward Joanne for waiving her right to a jury trial, instead simply advising her of the reality of when she could have a court or jury trial….At no time did the trial court suggest Joanne would be rewarded if she elected to waive a jury trial—to the contrary, the court encouraged her to talk to her lawyer before making a decision.”
She added:
“Under the circumstances, the trial court’s statement that Joanne could receive a court trial that day or wait nine months for a jury trial provided Joanne with complete information to enable her to make a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary decision whether to waive her right to a jury trial. The fact she elected to proceed expeditiously with a court trial did not make her decision involuntary.”
The case is Conservatorship of the Person of Joanne R., B310906.
Copyright 2021, Metropolitan News Company