Opinion ID: 844220
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Challenge to Panel of Prospective Trial Jurors

Text: Defendant asserts that a written motion challenging the manner in which jurors were selected in Los Angeles County, and the transcript of a hearing on that motion, have been omitted from the appellate record. Defendant fails to show, however, that any such motion was ever filed or any such hearing was ever held. At the outset of jury selection proceedings, Defense Counsel Ramirez told the trial court that he was “considering filing a challenge to the petit panel” and asked when the court would hold a hearing on that challenge. The court indicated that the proper time would be the following Monday. The appellate record contains a reporter‟s transcript of proceedings on the following Monday, but that transcript does not include a hearing on a challenge to the jury panel, nor is such a hearing mentioned in the minute order for that date. As evidence that the motion was filed, heard, and denied, defendant quotes remarks by the trial court later during jury selection. In response to defense counsel‟s complaints about the low number of African-Americans on the jury panel, the court said: “I can‟t control that. And that part, as far as challenge to the panel, is behind us.” The court‟s remark is reasonably interpreted, however, as 80 meaning only that defendant‟s opportunity to challenge the panel had passed without any challenge having been made. D. Attorney’s Request for Appointment as Defendant’s Counsel Attorney Angela Wallace represented defendant during the preliminary hearing on the complaint, but at the arraignment on the information the trial court declined to reappoint her. The court stated that there was “a letter in the file” from Wallace requesting the appointment. Defendant asserts that he has been denied meaningful appellate review because Wallace‟s letter requesting reappointment is not part of the appellate record. Defendant has not shown that the omission of Wallace‟s letter from the appellate record prevents meaningful appellate review of any claim. The record before us includes the trial court‟s explanation, which was essentially that Wallace lacked the required experience. Among other things, the court said that it “would under no circumstances appoint an attorney on a capital case with less than ten years‟ admission to the bar.” Attorney Wallace then addressed the court, but did not dispute the court‟s statements about her experience. The appellate record is adequate to review any claim regarding the failure to reappoint Wallace, and defendant does not explain how the letter could be relevant to any other potential claim. E. Disorganization of Appellate Record Defendant complains that the appellate record is not entirely in chronological order, that it contains duplicate copies of some documents, and that other documents in the record appear to be unrelated to this case. Appellate counsel asserts that this disorganized condition has required additional time to sort through it and identify potential claims. We agree that the appellate record is not as well organized as it should be, and that these deficiencies have imposed added 81 burdens on appellate counsel and on this court. Defendant has not, however, carried his burden of showing that the record‟s condition has prevented meaningful appellate review of any claim.