AN ACT to create and enact a new section to chapter 29-22 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to juror counseling.
Summary
HB 1047 creates a new section in North Dakota law requiring courts to offer post-trial psychological counseling, at no charge, to jurors and alternate jurors who served in certain especially traumatic criminal trials. The counseling is limited to up to ten hours and must be offered after trials involving extraordinarily graphic, gruesome, or emotional evidence or testimony.
The bill identifies the types of cases covered, including murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, felony-level assault or domestic violence, sexual offenses, and child abuse or neglect cases. It also allows courts to include other cases they determine are similarly traumatic. The counseling must be provided within 180 days after the jury is discharged and may be delivered by the court system, a state agency, or through a contract, either individually or in a group setting.
Impact
The bill adds a new juror-support obligation to chapter 29-22 of the North Dakota Century Code and gives courts a statutory duty to offer free counseling in qualifying cases. It affects the judiciary and court administration by creating a post-trial service requirement, while also potentially involving state agencies or outside providers in delivering counseling services. The measure is aimed at jurors and alternate jurors who are exposed to disturbing evidence in serious felony cases.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been generally well received, passing the House 80-11 and the Senate 32-13. Those vote margins suggest broad bipartisan support for helping jurors cope with the emotional effects of difficult trials, though the Senate vote shows somewhat more resistance than the House. No committee transcript was provided, so the available record mainly reflects favorable overall sentiment with some dissent.
Contention
The main points of possible contention are the scope and cost of the counseling obligation, as well as how broadly courts may apply the phrase "others as determined by the court." Some lawmakers may have been concerned about whether the state should fund counseling for jurors, how to define qualifying trials, and whether the court system should have discretion to extend coverage beyond the listed offenses. The recorded nays in both chambers indicate that, while the bill was supported overall, a minority had reservations about the mandate or its implementation.