*1 Dist., Sept. No. 40086. Second [Civ. 1972.] Div. Three. ADAMS, Petitioner,
RICKEY RELAINE COUNTY, THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES Respondent; PEOPLE, THE Real in Interest. Party
Counsel McCormick, Defender,
Richard S. Gerald L. Public James L. Buckley, Chaleff, Wisot, Defenders, Harold E. Shabo and G. Keith Public Deputy for Petitioner. Good, Pollock, Butler, Jacobs,
Edward I. Stanley Ned James G. K. San- Sacks, Okrand, ford M. Wirin, Leonard A. L. Gage, Fred Laurence R. Garcia, Gilbert, Obledo, Hatter, Mario Miguel J. Terry Sperber, Stephen Jr., Soven, Childers, John A. Ernest L. Harold Abby Aubry, C. Hart- Kenneth Nibbrig, C. Mason and Richard J. Amici Curiae on Palmer behalf Petitioner. Counsel, Vites,
John D. Maharg, Donald and Harold S. County Byrne K. Counsel, County Deputy Respondent. Busch, Guminski, Wood, P. District
Joseph Attorney, Arnold T. Harry Sondheim, and Ronald Ross B. for Real Harry Attorneys, Deputy in Interest. Party
Opinion FORD, P. J. This isa in mandamus the compel proceeding to vacate its order the denying motion petitioner’s quash petit which he jury panel,1 by motion the in which manner challenged selected court, for the Central District of the to make an and order grant- ing motion.
The criminal the in which is case motion was made pending District, one nine districts of the Court of Los counts, Angeles County. consolidated By containing information is accused petitioner commission of various felonies. The crimes with which he is occurred within the of the Central charged boundaries District, of which is a Jurors selected resident. for the petitioner, Negro, Central District are from the drawn list of voters on registered names a county-wide basis. For each of the selec- other districts the eight tion of jurors made to the is resort list of voters by registered living challenge 1Section 1060 of Code is as panel the Penal follows: “A sworn, juror writing must taken before a and must be in or be noted the the phonographic reporter, plainly distinctly constituting must state facts Sirhan, challenge." (See People ground of Cal.Rptr. Cal.3d 1121].) 497 P.2d names attack the formula which district. No is made upon of a The system. are obtained means computer of the resort to a core of because challenge petitioner’s draw for draw for the Central as contrasted with district-wide districts, other he is to a of due and of process equal denial subjected of the law. circumstances which light protection pertinent determined, will be forth. validity must set challenge trial of a of a charged with commission place person felony been normally county crime is have com- alleged mitted.2 courthouse has been located at the seat. Historically, county the City Angeles, While seat of Los Angeles County and substantial increase in gradual unusually population3 *4 area of the have resulted in the establishment of large county geographical branch courts as a means of efficient administration. maintaining judicial districts, That growth has culminated in the establishment of eight:judicial of the court retained at seat portion county the supplementing which and the is within area as the geographically presently designated Thus, District. Central there are now nine areas geographical constituting named districts. specifically forth are set in of the various districts functions designation to County. Los respect With Angeles
the Rules of the Superior 1 con- rule 2 be noted. Section cases, will criminal sections pertinent the the shall be held in desig- that sessions of tains the provision by the every it is stated that indictment nated nine districts. In section 2 3 is concerned be the Central District. Section shall filed in grand jury it is that a criminal the therein provided with of optional filing subject be filed as in section in may action or other than specified proceeding, and, further, actions be filed in a the that criminal may Central District “the in offenses was committed” or in which district which “one the the of a case was held.” to transfer Section relates hearing preliminary in “Whenever, the follows: the in event of a calendar is as congested the the calendar in district Presiding any including the Judge, opinion except Penal the basic rule venue: “. . . 2Section 777 of the Code states any competent provided by every offense in jurisdiction public law the otherwise respect jurisdictional territory of it is With court within the felonies, committed.” court, territory” “jurisdictional in which are triable Jones, 691; (Pen. Code, People Cal.Rptr. Cal.App.2d county. § 302].) Thus, except proper crime was committed is the venue which the Witkin, (See provides some statute an alternative venue. Cal. Criminal where other 66.) § p. Procedure 7,000,000 Angeles approximately present County of Los 3The people. District, so as to> congested jeopardize right Central become handling to a or interfere with proper trial speedy materially party district, the transfer of he order one may business may district for trial or cases in that district to another more pending order, be filed in district limited that cases which may period, section 6 shall filed in a district.” different The subjects relevant convenience witnesses and the of justice, portion promotion “After with criminal as follows: cases prior approval the transferee in the Criminal Master and the Calen- judge presiding judge dar action trans- may criminal Department from one ferred district to another.” 3-A of the
Rule Rules Los County Court of Superior follows: “All central district designated by departments cases, Presiding Judge to hear criminal and all other departments designated district district of that to hear crimi- Supervising Judge cases, nal shall be as the Criminal Division of the designated Los Angeles Court.” Turning relevant statutory as to provisions County is to be noted section 206 of the Angeles, *5 1923, 2, Code of Civil Procedure as amended (Stats. 195, in ch. § 437) aswas follows: list of p. “The to be in jurors, made counties of the class, first shall number contain the which shall have been persons the designated by court in its order. The such lists shall names for be se- lected the from different wards of the in townships counties respective therein, the number of proportion as as the nearly inhabitants same can estimated lists; the and said said lists persons making shall be other; and separate further, distinct the kept one from provided, class, counties of the first where sessions of the court are held therein, in cities seat, other than the the names for county such lists to serve in said city shall be selected all from the in which said townships located; and city further, that no names from said provided, township shall be selected to serve trial as for other of the any part county.” 3, 1951, 1495, ch. (Stats. 206 in p. § amendment of section
By districts instead 3477) reference was districts and judicial made In was reworded substantive change 1959 the section without townships. 1959, 501, 10, 2456). was not thereafter (Stats. ch. Section 206 p. § 1412, 2949) until ch. when the words (Stats. amended p. § were added last words of the section. “other than in the seat” as the county as section of the Code of Civil Accordingly, presently Procedure of the list made in a first class follows: “The of trial jurors county [Los which been contain has Angeles shall the number County] persons the the trial list shall its order. The names for designated by the selected from different wards or districts respective therein, nearly counties in number of inhabitants proportion the same can be estimated the lists. The trial making persons list shall be In distinct from list. grand jury kept separate of the first class where sessions of the su- county County], [Los seat, court are held in cities for other than the names perior county such list to serve shall be selected from district in city which is located district city no names such shall be selected to serve as trial for any other other than in the county, county part seat.” of the method challenge
At of the defendant’s this case hearing Commissioner Jury the Central selecting jurors for the Cen- that the jurors Court testified Angeles County Superior other but that jurors any tral are county drawn from entire district. There area from the district drawn solely geographical when, and a half was a year pursuant time approximately period judge, to the the then order of December presiding That order from that district. for the Central District were drawn only an acting the order of July signed by presiding terminated 1948, the the witness first entered service judge. When basis drawn for the District were time during and that continued for the period practice except 23, 1969, is made by order of December was effective. No inquiry office as to the race of his juror commissioner no statistics of race. with matter keeps *6 County Assistant the Los Angeles The Commissioner of Jury that the of mainte- charge, Court testified he was the person primarily A of jurors. nance of statistics with the process por- “Q. tion of his was as follows: The Central District testimony figures lower, the certified are lower than in actually people percentage return, less other district? A. Yes. The in the Central percentage Q. A. District. What do mean return? The you qualified percent out. out.” the number mailed Number of mailed opposed questionnaires and the statistics furnished him the witness’ testimony supported the that lesser of residents the Central District conclusion proportion certified for was due to factors of lack of to letters jury the duty response sent to voters of the number by means registered computer system the who were excused from service. The witness responding persons had been with office of commissioner since and in needed approximately service Central District of his period it is the entire county for the because summoned percent both civil of trial (including district in largest departments terms criminal trial departments). that Clerk testified County senior statistician for cases in the in criminal
in the 1970 there were 782 sworn year juries criminal sworn Central over of all percent juries slightly in the entire county. in the Breiman, witness,
It was was statistician. Dr. qualified stipulated evidence, Based on his of documents which were in the witness study testified that 22 voters in reside in the registered the county percent Central District. is black. Eleven percent
Dr. Breiman Central were determined that if the for the selected draw, means of a so se percent lected would Central District. He that determina explained 69,000 names[4] tion as follows: “The . . . on the average represent Now, one number, voter in every I that the forty. assumed same same ratio on the draw prevailed through the Central District other through I had districts. So which me number of figure gave registered the total voters that would Now, be contacted in I the Central District. then used 4-b], 4-B Page in the last cent gave column [exhibit per draw; certification Central District last available namely, twelve cent of all those per names drawn in the Central District were Now, certified. using that twelve cent I took twelve per figure, simply per cent 69,000 of the total number voters of the that would be contacted Central District, and arrived at number certified in Q. District. Did you do that each and district? A. I did that every Q. each and every words, district. In other you determined that of the 69,000, twenty-two cent of them would be drawn per from the Central District? A. That’s right.” short,
In based on the certification table for Dr. Breiman deter- mined the selected for the Central proportion District which necessary 4It is figure “69,000 understand context in which the names” used. The 69,000 previously figure commissioner had testified that of the *7 referred to the computer number use of names drawn registration from the county-wide entire voter jurors list as for the Central District. (Two regular year.) draws were made for the Central each drawn, A letter prospective juror was sent to each whose name was but the number jurors actually of certified only service in the a Central District was fraction 69,000, of due the non-responses, exemptions substantial number of excusáis and from service.
726 noted, would come from each district. As has been 11 percent would use come from the Central By District. document entitled “Racial (exhibit 11), Breakdown of Population Angeles County" which defender, had been aby prepared deputy public proceeding the basis that 31.5 the percent the Central District was population black and 18.3 thereof Mexican-American, was brown or percent witness estimated that of the 11 of Central District percent jurors, per- cent be would black residents of that district and 2 be would percent be addition, would In brown residents thereof. percent who residents brown were black would be persons persons percent Thus, basis the Cen- of other districts. drawn on to the extent tral District would consist of black percent persons others,” the “white and extent Of brown persons percent. be District and would would come from Central 79 percent percent residents of other districts.
On cross-examination Dr. testified that 11 Breiman percent black, of the the ap- was population figure represented shown on total of the black in the districts as various proximate persons tried determine exhibit further that he had not to- 11. witness testified of the selected be black if from only what would drawn percentage of the his was residents Central District but that estimate” “very good 31.5 percent. reached to how he as on cross-examination an
In inquiry response would draw percent a county-wide that on conclusion “It testified: Dr. Breiman the Central black be persons take itself is to standard statistics procedure essentially very simple. District, and of the Central of blacks population proportion number of certified total assume that the proportion total same will be for blacks the as proportion Central District “Q. as follows: ensuing testimony part The witness’ population.”5 District were certi- testified, I that blacks in recall You also blacks; entire A. rate were other Not fied at a lower than groups. other dis- at a lower rate than considerably Central District was certified Q. Q. A. Did ask? A. I you find that was? No. why tricts. Did out you can’t the information the information is—I say give asked. I can’t a greater I was told that there were of the situation. knowledge firsthand hearing early was: part part into the in the stipulation 5A read record called, Tyree and testified that in duly sworn be deemed Dr. Andrea “That field, figures deemed registration voter opinion, expert and she an her large as demographic composition to be consistent with in the 1970 United reflected States census.” *8 Q. run a statisti- Did you number of Central District. non-responses A. That black were white? cal as to whether more were or more analysis Q. is, available. . . . Did the best of not my knowledge, information the Central out the that lived in work you percentage population I of the voter registration Judicial District? A. No. worked percentage Q. A. how much? That was 22 that was in the Central District. That was cent.” per
At the discussion of the law and its threshold of the applica- governing case, tion to facts of the it is to note the present petitioner’s appropriate which, noted, as as has been read position stipulation expressed into the desires a record in the “. . . that defendant early hearing: fair and a cross-section of the in- community impartial representing of residents of the Judicial cluding proportional representation District; that defendant desires that there be no systematic particularly exclusion of Central District residents by under other any representation is, means from the no exclusion systematic of those panel; who are familiar with the locale of these and with the vicinity crimes customs, crimes occurred and charged with the traditions morals, dress, patterns action of common thought, speech District; to the Central that defendant feels a afore- knowledge these mentioned facts is essential to a by fair determination his case.”6 is that section 206 first argument petitioner presented Procedure, order
of the Code of Civil “as implemented 6, 1971,” exercise of both denying pro is an July arbitrary equal power violation of the Fourteenth Amend tection of the law and due process the contention is ment. With matter equal protection, that, a substantial 206 creates to the Central section applied the affected area” and “in Negroes between disparity percentage venire. At a later Negroes point petitioner percentage “It is also essential to stating: his into closer focus brings position ask does not understand petitioner particular proportional ask that there be on the venire. He does representation classes neither exclusion nor of identifiable systematic under-representation venire.” petition charges the consolidated 6In his the defendant sets forth the contained in embodying kidnap purposes “[C]onspiracy information counts follows: Code), robbery, (§182 bodily harm kidnapping extortion and with murder Penal (§ Code), (§217 alleged Penal 209 Penal assault with intent to commit murder Code), Code), (§ multiple counts of armed suppression of a witness 136b Penal Code).” (§211 robbery Penal *9 728 sys selection is that jury constitutional
The governing
principle
(United
the community.
a fair cross-section of
tems
draw
from
must
Cir,
564, 567,
1970)
in footnote
(1st
citing,
v. Butera
420 F.2d
States
Court.)7 “While
decisions of the United States Supreme
pertinent
law,
does
in the
the constitution
cross-sectional
is
imbedded
firmly
concept
the com
be a
mirror of
not
that the
statistical
jury
jury venire
require
1968)
F.2d
(United States
DiTommaso
Cir.
405
(4th
v.
munity.”
1209].)
389, cert. den.
L.Ed.2d
89 S.Ct.
An eminent judge which it is community a cross-section of jury represents convictions, over have veto no should power drawn. Although group of determining should have the right process each participate institution, it must is to remain revered or innocence. If guilt jury Kaufman, Har- R. as a of one’s (Irving truly perceived peers.” 695, 696.) bingers Jury A.B.A.J. Reform all districts judicial If all selected for service criminal cases in basis, at on a there would in Los were drawn random (Cf. People v. Fort be no violation of the cross-sectional concept. (Ill.App. Indeed, 439, 446.) 1971) 273 N.E.2d the system long with the cross-sectional selection is in principle, compliance at minimizing aimed enact provisions, permissible limit which county, inconvenience expense service in a are chosen for area from geographical (4th Florence Cir. (See United States v. district. 572): (420 p. “It should be remembered 7In Butera the court stated F.2d at that, ideal, a true ultimate it is no means the outset while cross section system free of discrimi required Constitutional What mandate. is a against properly cognizable nation groups.” 46, 50; 1963) (1st States 321 F.2d 1972) 456 F.2d v. United Cir. Katz 7, 9, 193]; U.S. United cert. S.Ct. den. L.Ed.2d *10 (E.D.La. 31, 1968) 33.) v. Brown 281 States F.Supp. testified that while percent Breiman noted, has been Dr.
As black, the information was of of of County the population county-wide of on a jurors to him showed that the furnished black. who were of the jurors persons basis resulted in percent under- itself, not, unconstitutional establish But fact would that Alabama, 202, U.S. at [13 v. page In Swain representation. 824], stated: at 85 S.Ct. Supreme L.Ed.2d page the com be a need mirror “Neither the roll nor venire jury perfect identifiable strength reflect of every or munity accurately proportionate black persons Some between the proportion group.” disparity is not neces selected total and the population proportion It was discrimination, or indicative of intentional unintentional. sarily 1970) (1st supra, stated in United States v. Butera Cir. 420 F.2d at with a 13: that we content footnote do admit will be “We page used, somewhat when greater general figures disparity population fair because do not reflect the for a simply they measure clearly proper cross under section: the number of service actually persons eligible jury noted, valid has been the area statutory qualifications." designated As as the Central which contains approximately percent black certified for population county, percentage persons service was less than because jury in other districts of the greater propor tion of commissioner’s letter and jury persons non-responses commissioner excused from service. But the no racial statis jury jury kept and, tics as to such matters is no as to whether there evidence consequently, such to be excused were constant to non-responses applications all of the segments of the Central or greater were population less in case of black commissioner testimony persons. jury show, however, and of the assistant commissioner did that the names were selected at random use computer assurance was no discrimination as to race or with gave there other matter relating assembly body prospec tive constituting county. fair cross-section of the Furthermore, the record commissioner contains no suggestion standards in service. applied improper excusing persons DiTommaso, (405 F.2d supra, the court stated States In United cited, defendants’ ap- we have reject authorities we 390): “Under the p. representation argument approximately proportional parent be ob- If it can community required. identifiable groups various the ideal selection, may random representation tained proportional can to intentional the ultimate exclusion—but —because it is opposite all, of some but not regard and then only be achieved only rarely, In the all that required.”8 criteria. relevant Substantial representation be- shown court no substantial before this disparity case presently whole and as a residents in the of Negro tween the proportion v. Fouche Turner (Cf. on the of jurors. of Negroes proportion panel 578-579, 90 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d U.S. means of a 532].) selected Eight percent the county of black residents in draw were black persons. proportion *11 Thus, of the of black was 11 the persons representation percent. and satisfied under the cross-sectional substantial nature required concept the selection the mandate. county-wide jury constitutional Consequently, if it constituted the sole source could not be successfully process challenged the throughout county. for criminal trials conducted whether the use such jurors resolution is remaining The question valid to be where selected on basis continues the for each of such use is restricted to the Central District and jurors the of the from residents of only other districts court are drawn superior short, district In is whether in which the trial had. issue that difference in section 206 sanctioned jury-panel composition of the Code of Civil Procedure and as honored in actual practice, except noted, for the brief of time hereinabove constitutes an unconsti- period tutional classification. will be the answer explained, As depends upon whether, the nature of the functions of court in the Central District to relating criminal cases differs so from the nature substantially of the functions of the in court the other districts with to criminal cases as afford a constitutional basis for the variation set forth in section 206 as to the area to which resort shall be had in geographical (1970) supra, As stated in Turner v. Fouche process. succinctly 580], at 396 U.S. L.Ed.2d at page traditional page test as to whether there is a denial of under state law is equal protection “whether the classification rests on challenged grounds irrelevant wholly of a achievement valid state objective.” the center of
Historically, administration of the Court of Los Superior a subsequent portion (405 8In opinion of the in DiTommaso it was stated F.2d 392): at p. by occupation, “Measured blue collar workers constituted 29.3% eligible population, only but of the drawn. We conclude 18.6% that regard. constitution and representation the statute have been satisfied in this blue collar workers was composition substantial. The same is true when the of the degree is considered by the of education. Neither the constitution nor the statute requires more.” popu- been seat. As county growth at Angeles County court, of adminis- the center to the creation of lation led branches which is area unchanged geographical tration remained of the grand jury Central District. Sessions designated presently and, that indict- seat it is are held the county accordingly, appropriate of justice be filed in District. The efficient administration ments the Central one district there to transfer cases authority requires his deprived another no defendant assuring purpose conges- constitutional trial and right so speedy problems for that noted, tion can avoided or solved. As has been necessity of Los recognized Rules of the authority While administration reason- County. efficiency governmental places able limitation on the facilities and available physical judicial manpower districts, in the branch courts or the more commodious adapt- able facilities reservoir of at the large maintained physical judges seat Central District to>the afford essential flexibility administration criminal proper the Central justice. presence of a body selected on a county-wide basis accordance with the cross-sectional assures a defendant whose case is trans- principle *12 ferred to defects, that district of a free from constitutional jury irrespective of county at which crime place is to have been claimed committed or of the of defendant’s residence. place
It (who is true that it was that Keene Judge qualified stipulated that to each of of would judicial because his testify experience) 1971, 20 to 25 it was estimate that approximately 1970 and his years cases to the Central District. were transferred from branch courts While of transfers is large, significant that of cases is not the fact such number the availability a exists for necessity in that it the conclusion that supports Moreover, of criminal cases. a of transfer of sound means number of crim that a it is a in substantial knowledge matter common extends over periods inal cases Los trial Angeles County a held in long duration It is trials of weeks months. manifest await of other cases cause may branch court disruption disposition requires in that administration judicial trial district. Efficient ing the Cen to transfer to trial be subject necessitating lengthy a case exist, facilities greater more tral District where ample physical Further available, present. a larger pool manpower noted, in the county, all sworn juries the criminal more, as has been District,9 although are in the Central 50 percent approximately of California of the State to the Judicial Council statistics submitted 9The 1,497 of the total Angeles showed that County of Los by the Clerk year 1970 732 contains 22 That fact fortifies district population. percent and reason-
conclusion that for the Central District may properly to because, drawn on a in addition the matter ably be basis* burden with constitutional consideration of the principles, compliance not called for service is a factor overlooked. placed persons This factor was in the federal selection recognized relating legislation (1968) supra, as was noted in United States jurors, v. DiTommaso 385, 391, F.2d as follows: page throughout “In selecting district, a district court to make its enjoined selection from parts trial, district ‘so toas be most favorable to an and not impartial unnecessary expense to incur or unduly part burden the citizens of added).” district with service.’ 28 U.S.C.A. § (emphasis In view of the state attained permissible objectives aon county-wide basis for the Central District on district-wide basis for each the other districts of the Superior under County, traditional criterion the classification equal protection embodied in section 206 of the Code of Civil Procedure is constitutional because it is not arbitrary but is based palpably sound reasons upon cognizable Court, (See Legislature. Whittaker v. 68 Cal.2d 358].) P.2d But Cal.Rptr. [66 since the classification relates to the fundamental right to a trial by jurors drawn from a fair cross-section of the its community, must constitutionality judged by the stricter standard of necessary whether it is promote compelling state (Shapiro interest. v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 600, 617, L.Ed.2d [22 1322]; Purdy Fitzpatrick S.Ct. & California, v. State 71 Cal.2d 456 P.2d Cal.Rptr. 1194].) A.L.R.3d It to be *13 noted that in the case the present petitioner raises no as to the question of the method propriety of selection of jurors in any district other than the Central District.
An essential concern of the state is that be a system there the admin- istration of meaningful in criminal cases which assures a adherence justice to constitutional The area of Los principles. population geographical County a a Angeles necessitate nature. system flexible complex use Only branch courts in districts can the designated superior in such a accommodate function manner as to reasonably litigants, jurors, However, witnesses and other interested efficient persons. requisite of such a a judicial system maintenance of forum operation requires for the trial of cases which cannot heard in readily the branch courts juries year 1970, sworn in cases in the criminal court for the in 782 were 1,300 year 1971, juries the Central District. In the were sworn criminal cases in county, thereof the Central District. sitting in cities other than the seat. Under the present of a is In view of the county-wide forum in Central District. scope sitting duties of the court substantial the actual portion potential cases, Central District in the trial of criminal by jury a for the Central District on basis is jurors county-wide necessary pro- valid thereby mote state interest compelling cross-section from county, distinguished par- district, ticular is the stricter obtained. unquestionably Consequently, equal is standard satisfied is classification for protection provision in section of the Code made of Civil Procedure. A writ discharged. peremptory writ of mandate is
The alternative mandate denied. J., concurred.
Allport, the writ.
COBEY, I would I dissent. J. grant of selection dual system is whether the current question presented Court Los cases in the trial in criminal Superior prospective clause Angeles County is unconstitutional under equal protection and under United Constitution the Fourteenth Amendment to the States been I, I have article sections 11 and 21 of the California Constitution. that the but I believe authority unable to find any definitive point exclu- dual in the systematic because results system, unconstitutional of service as sion of residents of the Central District from possibility necessity trial without a interest and governmental compelling such discrimination. justify all the nine districts. In County trial the selection prospective the Central District
districts except voters living from registered at random cases is made criminal District, however, selection made such district. In the Central short, In county. throughout voters residing at random from registered draw pros- there cases District criminal for Central drawn only in all other districts jurors; pective *14 district. of the residents juror either of prospective
I that the use of system concede only used in crim were the system if either is constitutionally permissible People v. (See County. Angeles Los cases in Superior inal 475.) in the use of rub lies 103 The (1972) *(Cal.App.) Cal.Rptr. Jones same time. both systems 18, hearing granted on 1972.
*A October
734
The of the District is that of different from makeup quite as a whole. The Central District contains Angeles County approximately 22 of the The of the Central Dis- county’s percent population. population is, however, (Mexican- trict 31.5 black and 18.3 brown percent percent American). hand, The county, other is 11 population percent black Indeed, 10 brown. approximately 62 percent approximately of the percent entire black of the county resides the Central District.
The Central District is for the most low apparently, ghetto part, income families. working-class it have little within people mobility live, work and exist almost within the Their district. completely way of life is when it is largely to the life unique compared ways obtaining in the other environment, districts. This extends to life style, uniqueness even, problems, extent, of life and perception some to language. court’s basic reason to the dual system returning juror prospective selection was because the most complicated lengthy civil litigation involving the most money tends to be tried in the Central District because of the location within this district of the large downtown law firms and presumably their local principal business clients. Appar- ently of the impact change system prospective juror selection upon composition juries criminal cases was not even considered prior change. the dual constitutes a my system systematic
In
means of exclud-
opinion
residents of
ing
the Central District from
service in the trial of
crim-
inal cases in the
Court of Los
Instead of these
County.
residents
the sole source of
such prospective jurors for cases tried
in the Central District as the residents of other districts are for cases tried
district,
in their
constitute
22
they
but
such
Their
percent
jurors.
position
as the source of such
been reduced
prospective
therefore from
—
100
to-22
a reduction of
Furthermore,
78
percent
percent
percent.1
fact,
1In
response
higher
because of the lack of
and the
percentage
persons
jury service in
Central,District,
only
excused from
.percent
11
prospective
countywide
actually
drawn
residents of the Central District. Of this 11
percent
percent,
percent
are black and
are brown.
position
My
equal
(see
protection
that the
its
counterparts
clause and
California
597, 609, 596,
(1971)
584,
601,
Serrano v. Priest
5 Cal.3d
Cal.Rptr.
an identifiable
fn.
[96
1241,
1187])
gross
P.2d
prohibit
geo
41 A.L.R.3d
such
exclusion
graphical group, regardless
subjective nondiscriminatory
adopt
intent
those
ing
juror
(See
dual
selection.
Thiel v. Southern
Co.
Pacific
217,
1185,
328 U.S.
L.Ed. 1181.
S.Ct.
[90
A.L.R.
1415]; Apodaca
Oregon (1972)
735 cases tried in in criminal jurors may of other districts residents become District; may never of the Central residents districts. tried in other in criminal cases his court in Mr. Justice Marshall language
Modifying slightly Peters recent case very court in the three for members opinion 2163], 94, 83, 92 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 503-504 (1972) v. 407 U.S. [33 Kiff large supra, any opportunity majority, quoted “[When in trial jurors to prospective segment community identifiable is remove from reduced], the effect to cases drastically criminal is of human and varieties experience, room human nature jury qualities necessary It not unknowable. of which unknown and range perhaps in as a class order will vote consistently that the excluded to assume group conclude, do, of a exclusion to we that their deprives perspective case have may on human events importance unsuspected bemay presented.” effect of the dual
Turning upon opportunity to its effect residents of the Central District to serve trial upon the Central the constitutional of defendants in criminal cases tried in right Adams, such as I have this to Since the decision say. Rickey Louisiana, Duncan U.S. 145 United States Court in v. Supreme 20, 1968, 1444], L.Ed.2d 88 S.Ct. state May grant [20 (such courts of offenses as those involved in this trials for serious case), for right constitutional “essential mis preventing fundamental all carriages of and for that fair trials are justice provided assuring Louisiana, v. (Duncan supra, at L.Ed.2d defendants.” pp. [20 501].) at p.
It seems clear to constitutional to a me Adams’ Rickey right trial is trial directly affected the dual selecting system, prospective criminal cases in Court. Since Angeles County Superior he is be tried Central District his will be drawn but countywide, one tried the same crimes another district precisely from, would be tried residents of that by jury exclusively drawn district. The constitutional of a defendant in criminal case to trial right v. (See (1942) includes trial Glasser United States by jury jury. proper 680, 707, 457].) 315 U.S. L.Ed. situated Similarly S.Ct. [86 proscribed. (See practiced ingeniously ingenuously, whether 84, 87, 164].) (1940) Smith v. Texas 61 S.Ct. 311 U.S. L.Ed. [85 began prior 2Duncan does not state the trials apply cases tried in courts where (DeStefano May 1968. Woods L.Ed.2d U.S. 1308, 1312, 2093].) 88 S.Ct. *16 defendants in criminal cases in are Angeles County entitled to be tried by juries selected on the same basis. Otherwise the of constitutional concept equal protection simi- laws “persons situated larly with to legitimate of the law receive like purpose Purdy (see Fitzpatrick treatment” & v. State Cal.2d California [79 P.2d Cal.Rptr. 1194]) 38 A.L.R.3d is violated. since both a right fundamental constitutional defendants Accordingly, criminal cases involved and there is some indication likewise of suspect (wealth race), classifications and dual selection before us is constitutional if it can in tenns of and a only justified necessity both & governmental (See Purdy Fitzpatrick State compelling interest. California, 579; supra, In re (1970) 3 p. Cal.3d Antazo 999].) 473 P.2d have Cal.Rptr. majority been unable meet this burden. do not show refer They necessity. two They only types cases which the criminal case load the Central District differs from First, those of the other districts. as a matter of convenience for district all indictments are filed attorney, Central District and all criminal cases with an starting indictment are therefore tried in the Central District. cases, however, These a comprise only total negligible portion number criminal cases tried (69 by juries Central District 1971). in79 District has offered is that since second justification and related far the number of courtrooms judges, personnel largest and lengthy it is the district to which difficult large, facilities generally, true, cases in the other are transferred for trial. This districts originating but these transferred cases run about 20 out year again criminal tried in the Central District. cases roughly by jury per year Furthermore, draw countywide as the defender has suggested, public limited to these two of cases and to civil cases as well would appear types to be I both feasible. note that case constitutionally permissible before falls into neither of these two us categories.
This leaves as the for the advanced only justification majority dual fact that the system the burden service residents upon the Central District is one- thereby substantially reduced. Since roughly half of the criminal tried to a cases tried in the Central containing little over one-fifth of the this burden county’s population, and not But on trial disproportionate service inconsequential. juries one of the fundamental alleviation obligations citizenship although of this burden residents of certain area be a may upon geographical itself, laudable considered object, cannot said to rise reasonably *17 interest. Further- compelling governmental necessarily to the stature mentioned, an effect of the dual more, as previously to serve District alone right
is to
to residents of
deny
in the Central District.
elsewhere than
juries
Court
I do not believe that Whittaker 710, There 358], conclusion. 438 P.2d contrary compels Cal.Rptr. is before whether our was Supreme question to hear to have state sized courts appeals in this two differently permissible in size convictions when differentiation misdemeanor justice (Whit court. has a municipal whether depends upon Court, supra, 368.) at A fundamental right taker pp. and, not out in defendants criminal cases involved pointed was our unlike trial Whittaker under constitutional page system judges, to be not juries, supposed representative.
I would the writ. grant A denied rehearing October petition opinion 10* was modified on October 10 and to read as above. printed J., was of that the should Cobey, granted. Peti- opinion petition Court was denied Novem- hearing tioner’s Supreme application J., Mosk, Peters, J., ber were that the 1972. of the opinion applica- be granted. tion should