Opinion ID: 1312308
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Challenge Jury Selection Method

Text: (15b) Finally, defendant argues that counsel was unreasonable in failing to challenge the method of selecting a jury venire from voter registration lists. Defendant does not argue that he was deprived of a representative jury on this point, but simply asserts that counsel's failure to move to quash the jury venire is another indication of inadequate performance. He relies on our decision in People v. Harris (1984) 36 Cal.3d 36, 45-59 [201 Cal. Rptr. 782, 679 P.2d 433], in which we decided that the defendant had made a prima facie showing of a violation of his right to a jury drawn from a representative cross-section of the community ( id., at p. 59) and that such a violation [was] prejudicial per se. ( Ibid. ) Defendant stresses that Harris was tried in the same courthouse (three years earlier) as was defendant, and asserts counsel had an obligation to consult the record of the Harris trial in preparation for trial of defendant's case. He claims that the failure to challenge the jury selection process demonstrates that his trial representation was constitutionally defective. We cannot agree. There is no indication in the record that defendant was either deprived of a representative jury or that counsel's failure to challenge the jury venire was unreasonable within the meaning of either Pope, supra, 23 Cal.3d at pages 423-425, or Fosselman, supra, 33 Cal.3d at pages 583-584. Accordingly, defendant's claim is without merit.