Opinion ID: 1153591
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Challenge to Petit Jury Panel

Text: Defendant challenged the petit jury panel on the ground that excusing from jury service persons for whom it would be an economic hardship to serve for $5 a day [the amount authorized for jurors' fees (see Pen. Code, § 1143)] deprived him of a cross-section of the community. The sole witness called by the defense was the jury commissioner who testified: If a prospective juror made an affidavit to the effect that it would be an economic hardship for him to serve for $5 a day he was excused. People in certain occupations (e.g., salesmen who receive solely a commission) habitually fill out such affidavits. It has been his experience that people who are not covered by contracts providing for payment during jury service and who do not have outside income are unable to serve for $5 a day. He is not authorized to pay above that amount. Defendant argued in the trial court that few can live on $5 a day without outside income and that excusing persons for whom it would be a hardship to serve for that amount left a jury composed of the wealthy, the retired, housewives, and those covered by contracts providing for payment during jury service. The trial court denied the challenge, and defendant argues on appeal that the court thereby erred. He cites Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co., 328 U.S. 217 [90 L.Ed. 1181, 66 S.Ct. 984, 166 A.L.R. 1412], but his reliance upon that case is misplaced. Thiel involved a federal jury from which daily wage earners were intentionally and systematically excluded, and the United States Supreme Court held that in the exercise of its power of supervision over the administration of justice in federal courts the defendant's motion to strike the jury panel should have been granted. In the instant case persons were excused from serving on the ground of economic hardship and not because they were daily wage earners. Thiel expressly recognized that a federal judge would be justified in excusing a daily wage earner for whom jury service would entail an undue financial hardship. (P. 224 [90 L.Ed. at p. 1186].) Similarly, it is permissible for a jury commissioner to excuse a prospective juror on the ground of such hardship. ( People v. Gibbs, 12 Cal. App.3d 526, 538 [90 Cal. Rptr. 866]; see also People v. Hess, 104 Cal. App.2d 642, 666-670 [234 P.2d 65] [app. dism. for want of substantial fed. question, 342 U.S. 880 (96 L.Ed. 661, 72 S.Ct. 177)].) (5) The court did not err in denying defendant's challenge. (See People v. Gibbs, supra, 12 Cal. App.3d 526, 538-539.)