Opinion ID: 1200797
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Denial Of Jury Selected From Representative Cross-section of Community.

Text: (1) Defendant contends that the trial court's denial of his motion for payment of juror fees in excess of the statutory daily fee authorized by section 1143 denied him the right to a jury selected from a representative cross-section of the community as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 16 of the California Constitution. Counsel argued below: We're directing the motion at those people who are excluded by reason of poverty. That's a group that is a cognizable class, and the exclusion could be remedied by increased jury fees. We have repeatedly rejected this claim. (See, e.g., People v. Johnson (1989) 47 Cal.3d 1194, 1214 [255 Cal. Rptr. 569, 767 P.2d 1047]; People v. Harris (1989) 47 Cal.3d 1047, 1076-1078 [255 Cal. Rptr. 352, 767 P.2d 619]; People v. Milan (1973) 9 Cal.3d 185, 195-196 [107 Cal. Rptr. 68, 507 P.2d 956].) Claims of denial of a fair cross-sectional jury are analyzed by ascertaining whether a cognizable class has been excluded. ( People v. Fields (1983) 35 Cal.3d 329, 345 [197 Cal. Rptr. 803, 673 P.2d 680].) ( People v. Johnson, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 1214.) As in People v. Harris, supra, 47 Cal.3d at page 1078, [Defendant] has not established that the persons excluded on hardship grounds in this case constitute a cognizable class. He suggests that the resulting panel consisted only of persons who did not need employment, or whose employers continued their salaries, but the record confirms neither this claim nor the implicit assertion that those persons who were excused constitute a cognizable class. [Fns. omitted.] [2] Furthermore, there was a lengthy discussion of the issue of jury fees, and what constitutes a cognizable class, prior to jury selection. The record reflects that the trial court was fully aware of its duty to be alert to prevent ... excessive excuses on such grounds as sex, age, job obligations, or inadequate jury fees.... ( People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258, 273 [148 Cal. Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748].)