Justices Set Up Working Group to Study Bias in Jury Selection
"Some states have adopted or begun to consider additional measures designed to address perceived shortcomings in the practical application of the Batson framework." The court added: "Today we join this dialogue."
January 29, 2020 at 06:55 PM
4 minute read
The California Supreme Court said Wednesday it will appoint a working group to scrutinize the effectiveness of rules targeting discrimination in jury selection, an issue that has challenged and sometimes divided the seven justices in recent years.
In a statement, the court said Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye in the coming weeks will appoint "a diverse work group" of judges, prosecutors, defense counsel and other lawyers to consider possible changes to jury instructions and peremptory challenges.
"For more than 30 years, courts have applied the legal framework set forth in Batson / Wheeler for ferreting out impermissible discrimination in the use of peremptory challenges," the court wrote. Batson refers to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1986 ruling in Batson v. Kentucky and the 1978 California Supreme Court case People v. Wheeler. Both opinions bar the dismissal of potential jurors based solely on their membership in a particular group.
"In recent years, some states have adopted or begun to consider additional measures designed to address perceived shortcomings in the practical application of the Batson framework and to better ensure that juries represent a cross-section of their communities," the California Supreme Court's statement continued. "Today we join this dialogue."
The working group announcement follows the state Supreme Court's denial of an appeal Wednesday in People v. Bryant, a case involving two African American men convicted of murder in Contra Costa County in 2017. Gary Timothy Bryant Jr. and Diallo Ray Jackson argued in their appeal that prosecutors improperly dismissed all six African American members in the jury pool.
Two of the potential jurors were dismissed for cause. The other four were the targets of peremptory challenges. During a Batson/Wheeler challenge in the trial court, the prosecutor cited reasons ranging from the past arrest of one potential juror's son to the work of another juror's daughter at the ACLU. Superior Court Judge Clare Maier denied the defendants' motions.
The First District Court of Appeal upheld Maier's rulings on the Batson/Wheeler challenge. But in a concurring opinion, Justice Jim Humes said the case pointed to "serious shortcomings with the Batson framework." The requirement that a court find "purposeful discrimination" to stop questionable peremptory challenges is difficult, he argued.
"Purposeful discrimination is especially hard to prove in the context of peremptory challenges, because attorneys can easily come up with supposedly non-biased justifications to strike potential jurors," Humes wrote. "Under California precedent, even a justification that is trivial, speculative, or objectively unreasonable suffices to disprove purposeful discrimination if it is facially neutral and the trial court credits it as being subjectively genuine."
Humes pointed to the state of Washington, where the Supreme Court in 2018 enacted a rule giving trial courts more authority to block peremptory challenges "disproportionately" aimed at a prospective juror's ethnicity, prior contacts with police or residence in a high-crime neighborhood.
"Our state should not stay on the sidelines any longer," Humes wrote. "The time has come for the Legislature, Supreme Court, and Judicial Council to consider meaningful measures to reduce actual and perceived bias in jury selection."
California's Supreme Court has wrestled with the high bar set for successful Batson/Wheeler challenges. In affirming a death penalty conviction in 2018, the majority found that while the prosecutor deserved "close scrutiny" for excusing every potential black juror her reasons for doing so were "race neutral" and "inherently plausible."
In dissent, Justice Goodwin Liu noted that the court had not found a prospective black juror improperly excused for discriminatory reasons in 30 years.
"One need not question the overall excellence and integrity of our prosecutors and trial courts in order to pause and wonder whether we have maintained the proper level of vigilance," Liu wrote.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMeet the Pacific Northwest Judges Who Rejected the Kroger-Albertsons Supermarket Merger
4 minute readJudge's Civil Contempt Order for Zoom Recording Violation Must Include 'The Keys to the Cell,' State Appellate Court Says
4 minute readFederal Judge Grants FTC Motion Blocking Proposed Kroger-Albertsons Merger
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250