Opinion ID: 2623326
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Fair cross-section of the community

Text: Pointing out that none of the jurors deciding his case was African-American, defendant posits that the racial composition of the venire pool did not reflect an adequate cross-section of the community, in violation of his federal and state constitutional rights. (U.S. Const., 6th & 14th Amends.; Cal. Const., art. I, ง 16.) He asserts that the venire's racial composition was potentially significant here because he is an African-American accused of killing a White person. A criminal defendant is guaranteed the right to be tried by a fair and impartial jury drawn from a representative cross-section of the community. ( People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258, 266, 277, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748.) But a defendant who does not object to the panel or move to quash the jury venire on this ground has not preserved the issue for appeal. ( People v. Champion (1995) 9 Cal.4th 879, 906-907, 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 547, 891 P.2d 93; People v. Fauber (1992) 2 Cal.4th 792, 816, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 24, 831 P.2d 249.) This is the case here. Even if properly before us, this claim lacks merit. To establish a prima facie violation of the right at issue, a defendant must show: (1) the assertedly excluded group is a distinctive group in the community; (2) the group's representation in venires from which juries are selected is neither fair nor reasonable in relation to the number of such individuals in the community; and (3) the underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process. ( Duren v. Missouri (1979) 439 U.S. 357, 364, 99 S.Ct. 664, 58 L.Ed.2d 579; People v. Massie (1998) 19 Cal.4th 550, 580, 79 Cal. Rptr.2d 816, 967 P.2d 29.) A defendant cannot establish a prima facie case of systematic exclusion of a distinctive group merely by presenting statistical evidence that the group is underrepresented in the jury pool, venire, or panel. ( People v. Massie, supra, at p. 580, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 816, 967 P.2d 29, fn. omitted; People v. Howard (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1132, 1160, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 268, 824 P.2d 1315; People v. Bell (1989) 49 Cal.3d 502, 524, 262 Cal. Rptr. 1, 778 P.2d 129.) Instead, he or she must show that the underrepresentation `is the result of an improper feature of the jury selection process.' ( People v. Massie, supra, at p. 580, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 816, 967 P.2d 29, quoting People v. Howard, supra, at p. 1160, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 268, 824 P.2d 1315.) Here, defendant acknowledges he lacks evidence that any disparity in representation of African-Americans in the venire was the result of an improper feature in the jury selection process. He nonetheless urges this court to reconsider the requirement that a defendant present something more than statistical evidence of a disparity to satisfy this prong of the threepart test for establishing a prima facie case of violation of the fair cross-section requirement. Defendant fails to provide any reasons why a defendant's burden in this regard should be lightened. Accordingly, we decline to revisit the issue here. (See People v. Bell, supra, 49 Cal.3d at pp. 528-531, 262 Cal.Rptr. 1, 778 P.2d 129 [discussing why statistical showing of underrepresentation is inadequate to meet defendant's burden of showing systematic exclusion].)