SB 645 prohibits any party from using a peremptory challenge to remove a prospective juror because of that juror’s race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin, religious affiliation, or perceived membership in those groups. The bill creates a procedure for objections, requires the challenger to state contemporaneous reasons on the record, and directs courts to evaluate those reasons under a new standard that explicitly recognizes unconscious bias.
Beyond prohibiting discriminatory strikes, the bill establishes presumptions of invalidity for a detailed list of common justifications (for example, distrust of law enforcement, neighborhood, nonnative English speaker, dress), sets a clear-and-convincing burden to overcome those presumptions, and supplies remedies including seating the juror, additional strikes, quashing the venire, or declaring a mistrial. It also prescribes de novo appellate review of denials and applies to criminal trials and specified civil cases, with selection beginning on or after January 1, 2022.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill forbids peremptory strikes tied to specified protected characteristics, requires the striking party to state reasons on the record, and directs the trial court to assess those reasons for a "substantial likelihood" of bias under an objective, awareness-informed standard. It creates a presumption that many common rationales are invalid and requires clear-and-convincing proof to rebut that presumption.
Who It Affects
Criminal prosecutors and defense counsel, civil litigants in enumerated civil-rights and related civil matters, and trial judges who must make new evidentiary and credibility calls during voir dire. Public defender and district attorney offices will also be subject to historical-use review when prior patterns are alleged.
Why It Matters
SB 645 shifts the burden of justifying peremptory strikes toward the party exercising them and codifies unconscious-bias considerations into jury-selection law, increasing court involvement in voir dire and raising the stakes of juror questioning, recordkeeping, and appellate review.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 645 revamps how peremptory challenges are handled in California courts. It starts with a bright-line prohibition: parties may not use peremptory strikes because of an individual’s race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin, religious affiliation, or because the juror is perceived to belong to any of those groups.
If an objection is raised to a peremptory, the bill requires the striking party to give the reasons for the strike on the record; the discussion thereafter must occur outside the presence of the rest of the venire. Objections generally must be made before the jury is impaneled unless new information emerges later.
The statute sets a novel adjudicative standard. The court must evaluate only the reasons actually stated and decide, viewing the facts through the lens of an "objectively reasonable person" who is aware that unconscious bias exists, whether there is a "substantial likelihood" (defined as more than a mere possibility but less than a preponderance) that a protected trait was a factor.
The bill lists circumstances and comparative evidence the court may consider—such as disproportionate questioning, similar answers by other jurors not struck, and a pattern of prior disproportionate use of strikes by the same counsel or office—and instructs that the court need not find purposeful discrimination to sustain an objection.SB 645 draws specific lines around commonly asserted reasons for strikes. It creates a statutory presumption that certain rationales—like a juror’s stated distrust of law enforcement, neighborhood, receiving state benefits, nonnative English, dress, or a family member’s criminal history—are invalid unless the striking party proves by clear and convincing evidence that the reason is unrelated to protected-group membership and actually pertains to the juror’s impartiality.
Separately, demeanor-based reasons (inattentiveness, lack of rapport, confused answers) are presumptively invalid unless the court or opposing counsel observed the behavior and the challenger explains why it matters to the issues to be tried.If a court sustains an objection, SB 645 gives a menu of remedies: seating the challenged juror, quashing the venire and restarting selection, declaring a mistrial if the jury has been impaneled, awarding additional peremptory challenges to the objecting party, or any other appropriate relief. For appeals, the bill requires de novo review of denials of these objections, limits appellate courts to the reasons actually given at trial, and deems erroneous denials prejudicial mandating reversal and a new trial in those cases.
The statute applies to all jury trials with selection starting on or after January 1, 2022, and to specified civil categories (civil-rights cases, certain commitments, hate-crime damages), with a pretrial notice obligation for civil claimants who want these procedures.
The Five Things You Need to Know
SB 645 requires the party exercising a peremptory challenge to state its reasons on the record when an objection is raised; the court then evaluates only those stated reasons.
The court must decide whether there is a "substantial likelihood" that a protected trait influenced the strike from the viewpoint of an objectively reasonable person aware of unconscious bias; purposeful discrimination is not required.
A statutory presumption of invalidity applies to a list of common justifications (e.g.
distrust of law enforcement, neighborhood, nonnative English, dress); the challenger must prove by clear and convincing evidence that such reasons are unrelated to protected-group membership and bear on impartiality.
If the court sustains an objection, remedies include seating the juror, quashing the venire and restarting selection, declaring a mistrial, or awarding extra challenges; the objecting party may request which remedy to pursue.
Denials of objections are reviewed de novo on appeal, appellate courts may consider only reasons actually given at trial, and an erroneous denial is treated as prejudicial and requires reversal and remand for a new trial.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Flat prohibition on strikes tied to enumerated characteristics
This provision states the core rule: parties cannot use peremptory strikes because of a juror’s race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin, religious affiliation, or perceived membership in any of those groups. Practically, it expands the protected classes referenced in the classic Batson doctrine and places those categories into statutory law rather than leaving the protection solely to constitutional case law.
Objection procedure and obligation to state reasons
When an objection is lodged by a party or raised sua sponte by the court, the statute requires that further discussion occur outside the panel and that the objection be timely—generally before impaneling unless new information arises. The striking party must articulate the reasons for the peremptory challenge on the record, triggering the court’s obligation to evaluate those stated reasons; the statute prohibits digging for unstated rationales or permitting post-hoc justifications.
Evaluative standard: "substantial likelihood" and totality-of-circumstances review
The court must assess the stated reasons under a totality-of-circumstances test from the viewpoint of an "objectively reasonable person" who recognizes unconscious bias as a cause of unfair exclusion. The bill specifies that the court may consider comparative questioning, whether similar answers from jurors in different groups were treated differently, whether the challenged reason is disproportionately associated with a protected group, and whether counsel or a counsel’s office has a pattern of disproportionate strikes. Importantly, the court is limited to reasons actually given and cannot hypothesize other justifications.
Presumptions of invalidity and the clear-and-convincing rebuttal standard
SB 645 lists 13 categories of commonly asserted reasons and treats them as presumptively invalid unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence showing the rationale is unrelated to protected-group membership and ties to the juror’s impartiality. The statute defines the clear-and-convincing standard for this context as requiring a high probability that the reason is not rooted in conscious or unconscious bias. This elevates evidentiary demands on challengers when relying on those enumerated justifications.
Demeanor-based reasons presumptively invalid absent confirmation
Demeanor rationales—such as inattentiveness, lack of rapport, or confused answers—are presumptively invalid unless the trial court or opposing counsel actually observed the asserted behavior and the challenger explains why that behavior matters to the specific case. This curbs routine reliance on subjective impressions unless they are verified and tied to case-specific relevance.
Remedies for sustained objections
If the court sustains an objection, the statute gives the trial court a nonexclusive menu of remedies: seat the challenged juror, restart selection by quashing the venire (if requested), declare a mistrial and reseat a jury (if impaneled and requested), grant extra challenges to the objecting party, or apply any other appropriate relief. This flexible list lets judges tailor relief to the prejudice found, but it also puts discretion in the trial judge’s hands.
Scope, civil-case applicability, notice, intent, and severability
The rule applies to jury selection beginning on or after January 1, 2022. While the statute mostly targets criminal trials, it extends to specified civil categories—civil-rights suits, certain civil commitments, and hate-crime damages—and requires civil claimants to notify the court and opposing parties after the final status conference or at least 15 days before trial. The Legislature also states an intent not to lower the cause-challenge standard and includes a severability clause to preserve remaining provisions if part is struck down.
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
- Prospective jurors from enumerated protected groups — gains statutory protection against both purposeful and unconscious bias-based peremptory exclusions, increasing the chance that trials include more demographically representative juries.
- Defendants and criminal defendants generally — benefits from stricter controls on discriminatory strikes that can improve the fairness of juries in criminal trials, especially where strikes have been used to shape the jury composition.
- Civil plaintiffs in enumerated categories (civil-rights, Section 1983, Tom Bane, Unruh, Title VI, Voting Rights, Fair Housing) — these claimants get the same anti-exclusion protections during jury selection, which can be consequential in cases where identity is central to the dispute.
Who Bears the Cost
- Prosecutors and private defense counsel — must articulate and defend peremptory rationales under a higher evidentiary standard and risk having strikes overturned, increasing preparation time for voir dire and potential appellate exposure.
- Trial courts and court administrators — will face more sidebars, evidentiary assessments, and remedial decisions during voir dire, creating administrative burdens and potential scheduling delays.
- Public defender and district attorney offices — subject to scrutiny for historical use patterns; offices with disproportionate strike histories may face repeated objections, recordkeeping burdens, and litigation to rebut allegations.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
SB 645 pits two legitimate aims against each other: the imperative to eliminate both purposeful and unconscious discrimination in jury selection, and the traditional, strategically valuable discretion parties have exercised through peremptory challenges to shape a jury. Strengthening protections against exclusion increases fairness but narrows the space for legitimate, case-specific jury management and will likely increase courtroom disputes and appellate intervention.
The statute raises several implementation and doctrinal questions. First, operationalizing an "objectively reasonable person" who is expressly aware of unconscious bias is conceptually different from the traditional Batson framework and may push courts into making fact-bound sociological assessments that judges and trial counsel are not uniformly trained to make.
Second, the law requires courts to consider only the reasons actually stated but also permits consideration of historical usage and comparative questioning; litigants will litigate how far back or how broadly to examine counsel’s past practices and what constitutes a valid comparative analysis.
The presumptions of invalidity and the clear-and-convincing rebuttal standard reduce the evidentiary room for certain legitimate strategic considerations that correlate with protected traits. Many of the enumerated presumptively invalid justifications (neighborhood, employment in a disproportionately occupied field, receipt of state benefits) are correlated with socioeconomic status or life experience that can be relevant to case-specific fairness; courts will need to parse when a proffered reason is truly individualized and when it is a proxy for protected characteristics.
Finally, the statute’s retroactive application to jury selections beginning January 1, 2022, and the instruction that appellate courts review denials de novo could increase retrial litigation and raise finality concerns for cases already adjudicated.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.