AB 223 rewrites Section 232 of California's Code of Civil Procedure to prescribe the exact wording judges must use when obtaining two juror acknowledgments: one before voir dire and one immediately after the trial jury is selected. The pre‑voir dire script adds an explicit “under penalty of perjury” warning that failing to answer questions about qualifications and ability to serve may result in criminal prosecution; both scripts must be acknowledged by jurors with the verbal response “I do.”
The change standardizes courtroom practice by imposing a short, uniform script. That creates a clearer record for prosecutors and courts if false answers during voir dire are later alleged, and it alters how judges and counsel approach juror questioning, potential challenges, and juror warnings.
The amendment raises practical and constitutional questions about chilling candid answers, how perjury prosecutions would be handled, and what operational changes courts must adopt to implement the new script reliably.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill replaces the jury‑acknowledgment language in CCP §232 with two fixed questions: a pre‑voir dire perjury acknowledgment and a post‑selection pledge to decide only on evidence and the court’s instructions. Both require an oral acknowledgement of “I do.”
Who It Affects
Trial judges, court clerks, prosecutors, defense and civil litigators, and prospective jurors across California—because the amendment prescribes the exact courtroom script and timing for the acknowledgments. Court administrators must update local procedures and training.
Why It Matters
By standardizing the wording and tying pre‑voir dire answers explicitly to perjury liability, the bill strengthens the formal basis for prosecuting false voir dire statements and changes the dynamics of juror candor, voir dire strategy, and courtroom recordkeeping.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 223 inserts two precise scripts into California’s jury‑selection statute and requires jurors to respond aloud with “I do.” The first script is a pre‑voir dire perjury warning asking whether prospective jurors understand they must truthfully answer questions about their qualifications and ability to serve and that failure to do so “may result in criminal prosecution.” The second script, given immediately after the panel selects the trial jury, asks jurors to agree they will base their verdict solely on the evidence and the court’s legal instructions.
Operationally, the amendment makes the judge’s introductory prompts less discretionary. Judges must read the fixed language before counsel begins questioning, and then again once the jury is seated.
That reduces variability across courtrooms but also means there's a uniform, on‑the‑record basis that prosecutors or parties could cite later if they allege a juror lied during voir dire.The bill does not change California’s perjury statute or create a new criminal offense; it sets a standardized procedural foundation that could make proving false statements during jury selection easier in practice by clarifying that jurors were warned and acknowledged the warning. It leaves unanswered how frequently prosecutors will pursue such charges, how courts will assess intent and materiality for perjury, and how judges will handle voir dire questions that implicate privilege or the Fifth Amendment.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill prescribes two exact juror prompts in CCP §232 and requires jurors to respond verbally with “I do.”, The pre‑examination prompt includes the phrase “under penalty of perjury” and warns that failure to answer truthfully about qualifications and ability to serve may lead to criminal prosecution.
The post‑selection prompt requires jurors to agree they will decide the case only on evidence and the court’s instructions, obtained “as soon as” selection is completed.
AB 223 amends only the wording and timing in §232; it does not modify California’s perjury statute or add penalties beyond existing law.
The statute does not create an enforcement mechanism or direct prosecutors; it simply creates a clearer on‑the‑record acknowledgment that could be cited in later perjury or misconduct proceedings.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Pre‑voir dire perjury acknowledgment
This subsection replaces prior discretionary language with a single, mandatory question asking jurors—before counsel’s examination—whether they understand and agree, “under penalty of perjury,” to truthfully answer questions about their qualifications and ability to serve. The provision also requires the panel to acknowledge the question with the words “I do.” Practically, this creates a uniform, auditable warning that a false answer may lead to criminal prosecution; it also anchors the timing of the warning to a moment courts already use to identify prospective jurors’ qualifications.
Post‑selection pledge to decide on evidence and law
This subsection requires the trial jurors, immediately after selection is completed, to acknowledge a uniform statement promising to decide the case only on the evidence presented and the court’s legal instructions, again by answering “I do.” That places a short, standardized behavioral pledge on the record at the moment the jury is empaneled, which can be relied on for later motion practice or appeals about juror misconduct or bias.
What the amendment does not change
The amendment changes wording and formality inside §232 but does not alter perjury law, evidentiary rules, or the scope of voir dire questions. It does not specify procedures for documenting the acknowledgments beyond the verbal “I do,” nor does it assign enforcement authority or create new penalties. Consequently, proving perjury still requires meeting statutory elements (false statement, materiality, intent), and courts will need to reconcile the new script with existing protections such as privilege and, in criminal trials, the Fifth Amendment.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Prosecutors and county district attorneys — they gain a clearer on‑the‑record admonition that may strengthen perjury referrals involving false voir dire answers.
- Trial judges and court administrators — they receive a uniform script that reduces variance in courtroom practice and makes compliance easier to audit.
- Civil and criminal litigants concerned about honest juries — a standardized warning may deter juror falsehoods and provide clearer grounds to challenge or investigate alleged lies.
- Victims and parties in high‑stakes trials — the statute potentially reduces the risk that undisclosed juror biases or disqualifying conditions remain hidden.
Who Bears the Cost
- Prospective jurors — a stiffer, on‑the‑record perjury warning could discourage candid answers about sensitive topics and reduce willingness to serve.
- Defense attorneys and criminal defendants — in criminal cases, the perjury warning could chill juror disclosure or create tactical pressure during voir dire; it may complicate counsel’s strategy when questioning about sensitive subjects.
- Courts and prosecutors — potential increase in investigations or referrals for alleged perjury will require resources and create additional litigation over materiality and intent.
- Court administrators and judges — they must adjust scripts, update training and local procedures, and ensure the acknowledgments are consistently recorded and preserved.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is simple but sharp: require clear, on‑the‑record juror acknowledgments that strengthen the formal basis to punish lies, or avoid inserting a criminal‑law warning into delicate voir dire exchanges that may chill necessary, candid responses and shrink the pool of willing jurors.
The bill creates a tension between deterrence and candor. Making the pre‑voir dire warning explicit and tying it to criminal prosecution may reduce deliberate lies, but it also risks deterring jurors from answering honestly about delicate matters (mental health, prior victimization, biases) out of fear of criminal consequences for an inadvertent or ambiguous answer.
The statute does not offer guidance on how judges should frame follow‑up questions to reduce ambiguity or how to record and preserve acknowledgments beyond the verbal “I do.”
Another open question is enforcement. The amendment does not change perjury law or set standards for materiality or mens rea; bringing a perjury prosecution remains difficult.
That means the most likely near‑term effect is procedural—creating a cleaner record rather than a wave of prosecutions—but selective enforcement could raise due‑process and equal‑protection concerns. In criminal trials, courts will need to reconcile the warning with Fifth Amendment considerations when voir dire touches on topics that could incriminate the juror, an issue the statute does not address.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.