Johnson v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Dec 21, 1984 No. D002476Published

Before: Butler

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the supervisorial district used to select jurors for the North County branch court does not constitute the relevant 'community' for assessing jury representativeness, and that the state failed to demonstrate a compelling interest to justify the significant disparity in the jury venire.

Issues

Whether a supervisorial district constitutes the 'community' for purposes of assessing the representativeness of a jury venire.
Whether the state demonstrated a compelling interest to justify a significant disparity in the jury venire composition.

Disposition. Peremptory writ of mandate issued.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The Fifth does not even include all the geographic areas included within the area served by North County. As such, it cannot be considered the community for purposes of assessing the composition of the jury venire.”

“Petitioner is entitled to a jury venire which is more representative of the community as a whole.”

“Here, there are no facts to support the court’s assertion that convenience is a compelling state interest.”

Opinion

BUTLER, J.

Petitioner is charged with murder and wishes a trial by jury. He seeks to have his trial transferred from the North County Branch of the San Diego Superior Court (North County) to the downtown superior court on the basis the number of blacks in the venire of North County is not reasonably related to the number of blacks in that community. The trial court found there was an overwhelming discrepancy in the jury venire for North County when compared with the countywide venire but ruled the case should not be transferred, because the state had a significant interest in trying the case in North County.

North County is within the Fifth Supervisorial District (Fifth). The Fifth is not'exactly coterminous with the geographic area served by North County but prospective jurors are drawn from those persons on the county’s master jury list who reside in the Fifth. (Code Civ. Proc., § 206a.) Black persons comprise about 1.5 percent of the age eligible voters in the Fifth; they comprise about 4.5 percent of the age eligible voters in the County as a whole.

The test to be used in assessing whether the jury venire is representative of the community is set out in

Duren

Missouri

(1979) 439 U.S. 357 [58 L.Ed.2d 579, 99 S.Ct. 664], The three parts of the test are: (1) is the excluded group “distinctive”; (2) is the representation in the venire reasonably related to the representation in the community; and (3) is there systematic exclusion which causes the underrepresentation? Whether the disparity in representation here is significant hinges on defining what constitutes the community. The People argue the community is the Fifth since the jurors come from the Fifth and can only properly be compared with the Fifth. Thus, the argument continues, since there are 1.5 percent blacks in the Fifth and 1.5 percent blacks in the venire, there is no discrep

[88]

ancy. Although there is precedent for considering a judicial district as a community for purposes of reviewing the composition of the jury

Johnson v. Superior Court

AI Brief

BUTLER, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief