Summary — HB 4094 (2025): Jury Eligibility and Limits on Peremptory Challenges
Status & procedural history
- Introduced: February 19, 2025 (read first time; referred to Committee on Judiciary).
- Sponsor(s): Rep. Penelope Tsernoglou (listed co-sponsors in text); a companion bill is SB 1511.
- Statutory targets: Amends section 1307a of the Revised Judicature Act of 1961 (MCL 600.1307a) and adds sections 1307b and 1356 to that Act.
Note on source text
- The provided version also contains unrelated text from an Illinois bill titled the “Rogue Component Installation Prevention Act.” That material appears to be included in error. This summary focuses on the Michigan judicature amendments concerning juries.
Purpose and intent
- Narrow the grounds for disqualifying prospective jurors based on criminal history, and
- Limit the use of peremptory challenges that exclude prospective jurors on account of protected characteristics or specific personal circumstances — increasing judicial oversight to prevent discriminatory exclusions.
Key provisions
1. Changes to juror eligibility (amendment to MCL 600.1307a)
- Maintains basic qualifications (U.S. citizen, 18+, county resident, English proficiency, physical/mental ability).
- Revises the criminal-history disqualification language: removed a blanket bar of “convicted of a felony” and instead excludes those who are “currently incarcerated or on probation or parole.” (This narrows disqualification to individuals under active criminal supervision/incarceration.)
New section 1307b — criminal record and for-cause disqualification
- Prohibits disqualifying a juror for cause solely because of the juror’s criminal record.
- Allows disqualification for cause only when the prior conviction is for a crime similar to the crime charged in the current case.
New section 1356 — protected status and peremptory challenges
- Prohibits excluding a prospective juror from civil or criminal juries based on “protected status” (as defined by section 102 of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act).
- Establishes an objection procedure: a party or the court may object to a peremptory challenge on the ground it improperly targets protected status; the objection should be made before the juror is excused.
- Requires the party exercising the peremptory challenge to articulate reasons for the strike outside the presence of the panel.
- Courts must evaluate the “totality of the circumstances” and may deny a peremptory challenge if a reasonable person would view protected status as a factor; purposeful discrimination need not be proved. The court must state reasons on the record.
- Lists non-exhaustive factors for review (e.g., differential questioning, similar answers by others not struck, prior disproportionate use of strikes).
- Creates a rebuttable presumption of invalidity when the stated reason is that the juror distrusted law enforcement, believed in racial profiling, or had personal/family contact with stops/arrests/investigations/convictions.
- Declares certain stated reasons conclusively invalid: living in a “high-crime neighborhood,” having a child outside marriage, or receiving state benefits — such reasons require the court to find the peremptory challenge invalid.
Who is affected
- Prospective jurors: fewer people with past felony convictions (but not currently supervised) would be excluded; participants in communities with prior law-enforcement contact have specific protections.
- Courts and judges: increased duty to hear objections, analyze the reasons for peremptory strikes, and explain rulings on the record.
- Attorneys and parties: greater scrutiny and potential limitations on strategic use of peremptory challenges; may require more justification or increase litigation over strikes.
- Defendants and plaintiffs: potential changes in jury composition and voir dire processes that could affect trial dynamics.
Potential impacts and considerations
- Expands the eligible juror pool by removing lifetime felony-conviction bars (except for those incarcerated or on supervision).
- Aims to reduce discriminatory exclusions via peremptory strikes (strengthening protections beyond Batson-style standards), which may increase hearings about strikes and create more litigation at voir dire.
- Implementation will likely increase judicial workload for voir dire challenges and require careful recordkeeping of juror questioning and reasons for strikes.
- May prompt appeals on rulings about peremptory challenges and shape trial tactics for both prosecution and defense.
Text references
- Amends MCL 600.1307a; adds MCL 600.1307b and 600.1356 (as drafted in the Feb. 19, 2025 version).
