Williams v. Superior Court CA2/5

Filed 1/12/15 Williams v. Superior Court CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

BERNARD WILLIAMS, B257934 S221063 Petitioner, (Super. Ct. No. NA091969) v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,

Respondent;

THE PEOPLE,

Real Party in Interest.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDIINGS; petition for writ of mandate. Mark C. Kim, Judge. Peremptory Writ of Mandate granted. Ronald L. Brown, Public Defender of Los Angeles County, California; Jackie Lacey, District Attorney of Los Angeles County, by Phyllis C. Asayama and Matthew Brown. No appearance for Respondent.

INTRODUCTION The Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, respondent court, erred in denying the motion of defendant, an African American accused of murder, for appointment of an expert demographer to investigate and opine regarding his contention there was a significant disparity between eligible African American jurors in the South Judicial District compared to those summoned to the Long Beach Courthouse. The California Supreme Court ordered that we issue an alternative writ, which we did. The trial court did not comply with the alternative writ and failed to issue the appropriate order. Accordingly, we issue peremptory writ directing the respondent court to vacate its order denying the motion and to enter a new order granting it.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY Petitioner Bernard Williams, an indigent, after a trial in which he was acquitted on one count and a mistrial declared on the remaining two counts, moved for an order from respondent court to appoint and pay demographer Ashley Thomas as an expert to assist petitioner in demonstrating his contention that the current method of summoning jurors to Long Beach Courthouse deprives him of a jury derived from a cross section of the community. Petitioner’s motion, supported by a declaration of counsel and exhibits, sought to establish his claim of a significant disparity between eligible African American jurors in the South Judicial District compared to the African Americans who were summoned to the Long Beach Courthouse as jurors—that is that there was an underrepresentation of African Americans on the jury panel. Petitioner contends the jury services director confirmed jurors were summoned using the “bulls eye” method, which method draws jurors to the courthouse closest to their home. Petitioner claims an expert is needed to review 2010 United States Census data to determine whether the alleged disparity was constitutionally significant and determine the expected ethnic composition of the prospective panel of jurors assigned for