Opinion ID: 2590211
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Trial Court's Refusal to Augment Juror Fees

Text: Defendant contends the trial court's denial of his motion for an order directing Orange County to pay jurors selected to serve in this case fees exceeding the statutory minimum (former Pen. Code, ї 1143, repealed by Stats.1988, ch. 1245, ї 44, p. 4155; see now Code Civ. Proc, ї 215) denied him due process of law and a fair trial comporting with the heightened reliability requirement for death judgments pursuant to the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution. The latter requirement, he argues, imposed on the trial court a duty to ensure a jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community and not excluding those who would be subjected to financial hardship by being forced to sit during such a lengthy trial. Defendant observes that many prospective jurors were excused for financial hardship. He acknowledges we have held that excusals of potential jurors for financial hardship do not violate the fair cross-section requirement ( People v. Medina (1995) 11 Cal.4th 694, 747, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 165, 906 P.2d 2) and that due process does not require augmentation of the statutory juror compensation ( People v. DeSantis (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1198, 1215-1216, 9 Cal. Rptr.2d 628, 831 P.2d 1210), but he contends his case is different due to the length and complexity of his trial. Granted that the length of this trial (13 months from jury selection to penalty verdict) and number of victims (16 in the guilt phase, eight others in the penalty phase) distinguish defendant's case from other capital cases in which this claim has been raised, defendant nevertheless fails to persuade us a different outcome is required here. That is, he fails to demonstrate, empirically or logically, the constitutional significance of the marginal increase in the length and complexity of his trial over those in which we have previously rejected this claim. To the extent he is suggesting that unusual complexity of a case, per se, requires an increase in jury fees, he cites no supporting authority, and we are aware of none.