Opinion ID: 1196295
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Hardship Excuses

Text: During voir dire, the court inquired whether a protracted trial would pose any financial burden. Several prospective jurors explained that they or their employer would suffer some significant hardship under such circumstances. The court then either excused them outright or did so after some verification from the employer. (8) Although defendant did not object at the time and cites no authority for such an objection, he now faults this procedure as depriving him of an impartial jury drawn from a representative cross-section of the community. We have previously addressed a cognate argument and found it wanting: Claims of denial of a fair cross-sectional jury are analyzed by ascertaining whether a cognizable class has been excluded. [Citation.] Even assuming that only poor persons were given hardship exclusions, a fact not proven here, persons with low incomes do not constitute a cognizable class. [Citations.] ( People v. Johnson, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 1214.) By a parity of reasoning, whether or not the court had a blanket policy of granting hardship excuses to all those not reimbursed by their employers, defendant has failed to identify a constitutionally impermissible basis on which these prospective jurors were excluded.