Court Opinion

ID: 9570446
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:23:15.508079+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:07:58.295138
License: Public Domain

BIRD, C. J.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s affirmance of the convictions and special circumstance finding.
Appellant made a timely and adequate prima facie showing that his jury venire was improper in that Blacks were systematically excluded by the state’s selection methods. The state failed to rebut that showing.
Further, given the similarities between the record in this case and the records in People v. (Lee) Harris (1984) 36 Cal.3d 36 (201 Cal.Rptr. 782, 679 P.2d 433] (hereafter Harris), certiorari denied (1984) 469 U.S. 965 [83 L.Ed.2d 301, 105 S.Ct. 365] and In re Rhymes (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 1100 [217 Cal.Rptr. 439] (hereafter Rhymes), as well as the fact that this case arose within a few months of the lower court proceedings in Harris and Rhymes, I cannot concur in the majority’s arbitrary decision to deny appellant the benefit of those decisions. There is no logic in refusing to apply those rulings to a similarly situated individual where (1) the records below are nearly identical and (2) but for the time it took the trial court to certify the record on appeal and this court to complete its task, this case, rather than Harris and Rhymes, might have made it out the appellate door faster.
As I shall demonstrate, this court should find appellant’s underrepresentation claim meritorious for two interrelated reasons: (1) his prima facie showing of underrepresentation was adequate under Harris and Rhymes; and (2) the holdings in Harris and Rhymes are applicable in this case. A third point—that a reversal rather than a remand is appropriate—will also be discussed.1 The factual and legal background necessary to analyze these issues is presented as each is considered.
*278I.
The first question is whether appellant made a prima facie showing that his venire was underrepresentative of a cross-section of the community. This issue requires an examination of Harris and Rhymes.
“It is a fundamental tenet that a criminal defendant is entitled to trial by an impartial jury drawn from a representative cross-section of the community. This right is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the federal Constitution (Taylor v. Louisiana (1975) 419 U.S. 522, 530 [42 L.Ed.2d 690, 698, 95 S.Ct. 692]) as well as by article I, section 16 of the California Constitution (People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258, 272 [148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748]).” (Harris, supra, 36 Cal.3d at pp. 48-49.)
“In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, the defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a ‘distinctive’ group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process.” (Duren v. Missouri (1979) 439 U.S. 357, 364 [58 L.Ed.2d 579, 586-587, 99 S.Ct. 664].)
Only the second and third prongs of the Duren test were at issue in Harris, since it was clear—indeed, the state conceded—that Blacks and Hispanics, the groups alleged to be underrepresented, are distinctive or cognizable groups for cross-section purposes. (Harris, supra, 36 Cal.3d at pp. 50-51.) Those groups were the focus of appellant’s motion here, and, as in Harris, the state has conceded their cognizability under the Duren test.2
Harris involved a challenge to the jury venire at the Long Beach courthouse in Los Angeles County. The accused contended that the use of voter registration lists as the sole source for potential jurors resulted in significant underrepresentation and systematic exclusion of Blacks and Hispanics.
*279To buttress his claim, Harris relied on testimony and statistical data provided by Dr. Edgar Butler. Butler obtained and compared figures for the Black and Hispanic population of the county as a whole with the ethnic breakdown of potential jurors who appeared at the Long Beach courthouse for a three-month period in 1979. (36 Cal.3d at pp. 46-47.) Using 1980 census figures, as well as Butler’s 1970 census figures and 1975 figures derived from the 1970 figures, a plurality of this court found the comparative disparities3 for Blacks to be 49 percent (1970 figures), 53 percent (1975 figures), and 56.3 percent (1980 figures); and for Hispanics to be 81 percent (1970), 84 percent (1975) and 87.7 percent (1980). (Id., at pp. 47-48.)
At issue in Harris was the propriety of using total population figures rather than the more narrowly defined data reflecting only persons presumptively eligible for jury service such as those eligible to vote (hereafter “jury-eligibles”). (Id., at pp. 45, 51.) Harris held that “because of the difficulty in obtaining more accurate figures for jury eligibility, the defendant can present a prima facie case by showing through the use of total population figures a significant underrepresentation of a cognizable class. The burden then shifts to the state to demonstrate either that with more refined statistics, the underrepresentation would be reduced to a constitutionally insignificant disparity, or that there exists a compelling justification for the procedure which results in the underrepresentation.” (Id., at pp. 45-46.) Since appellant made such a prima facie showing and the state failed to rebut that proof, “shortsightedly restpng] its entire argument on the mistaken claim that defendant failed to present a prima facie case” (id., at p. 59), reversal was required (ibid.).
Justice Grodin provided the fourth vote for reversal, but “[wjith reluctance.” (36 Cal.3d at p. 71.) He agreed that “defendant’s showing [based on total population figures] should be regarded as sufficient to trigger further *280inquiry.” (Id., at p. 71, fn. omitted (cone, opn.).) He believed, however, that an accused “can at least be expected to refine those statistics on the basis of readily available census information reflecting the relative percentages of majority and minority populations over the age of 18.” (Id., at p. 71, fn. 1.) As to remedy, he preferred that the matter be remanded to permit the state to rebut the prima facie showing. (Id., at pp. 71-72.) This point is discussed more fully, post, at pages 289-293.
The Attorney General does not take issue with the “total population figure” holding of Harris. Instead, he focuses on a question which he believes still Ungers after Harris, and on which the members of the Harris court divided sharply. That question is whether an accused must make a prima facie showing of underrepresentation as to the area served by the particular courthouse in which the case is to be tried (e.g., a 20-mile radius from the courthouse, see Code Civ. Proc., § 2034), or whether the showing may be based on the county population as a whole.
In Harris, the plurality noted that both parties presented evidence and argued the case “on the assumption that all juries in Los Angeles County must be representative of the entire county.” (36 Cal.3d at p. 48.) The plurahty went on to note that “[t]he state has not attempted to rebut this prima facie showing by arguing that the Long Beach juries need only represent those persons living within 20 miles of the courthouse, and has not attempted to show that such juries were truly representative of that limited area.” (Ibid., italics added.)
As noted, Justice Grodin, in concurrence, agreed that there had been a prima facie showing based on countywide figures. However, he noted that there “may be merit... in the dissenters’ view that the more appropriate focus for statistical analysis is the area within a 20-mile radius from the Long Beach courthouse, but the People did not challenge the statistics' on that ground and this court has been presented with no basis for taking judicial notice of the geographical distribution of racial and ethnic populations within Los Angeles County. If my view as to the appropriate disposition were to prevail. . . that would be a matter of inquiry upon remand.” (Harris supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 71, fn. 1.)
The three dissenters in Harris clearly did not share the view that the county is the appropriate focus for cross-sectional purposes. Noting that the relevant statute requires only a cross-section of the “area served by the *281court” (Code Civ. Proc., § 197), Justice Mosk, with Justice Richardson concurring, suggested that “the community or area that is Long Beach” or “the supervisorial district in which the city is located (see Code Civ. Proc., § 206a)” should be the relevant focus. (36 Cal.3d at p. 73.) Since “defendant has produced no statistics relating to the ethnic composition” of these areas (ibid.), Justice Mosk presumably would have affirmed the trial court’s finding that Harris failed to make a prima facie showing.
Justice Kaus took a similar stance. He argued that “there is no showing that population figures for the whole of Los Angeles County are relevant with respect to a 20-mile radius from Long Beach.” (Id., at p. 75.) He also deemed irrelevant the state’s failure to argue that point in the trial court. (Ibid.)
From this review of the opinions in Harris, it is clear that four members of this court were of the view that a prima facie showing of underrepresentation could be made with countywide figures,5 but that such a showing might be rebutted with statistics indicating the lack of underrepresentation when the effects of the 20-mile rule (or some less-than-countywide rule) are taken into account. Therefore, the question becomes whether appellant made a sufficient showing.
As noted, the primary basis for appellant’s motion consisted of several documents from the record before the appellate department in Rhymes. Specifically, appellant submitted (1) a report by Dr. Butler—similar to the Long Beach report—which studied 805 jurors who were summoned to the Pomona courthouse from May through August of 1979 and compared the racial makeup of Pomona Superior Court jury panels with countywide population; (2) the referee’s findings from the evidentiary hearing; (3) three briefs filed in the appellate department; and (4) a copy of Judge Fainer’s memorandum decision granting relief.
Basing his statistics, as in Harris, on total county population figures, Butler found absolute disparities of Blacks of 4.6 percent (using 1970 population figures) and of 5.4 percent (using 1975 figures); and comparative disparities of 43 percent (using 1970 figures) and 47 percent (using 1975 figures). For Hispanics, the absolute disparities were 11.2 percent (1970) and 14 percent (1975), while the comparative disparities were 61 percent (1970) and 67 percent (1975). Butler also reviewed in a much less detailed fashion other panels for August and September of 1979 and March and April of 1980.
*282Butler concluded that (1) White male and female representation on the panels was balanced; (2) the panels were overrepresented by Caucasians, higher educated persons, persons of higher income, and persons of middle age; (3) there was an underrepresentation of Blacks; and (4) Blacks and Hispanics were less likely to register to vote.
The referee’s report in Rhymes summarized the testimony of several witnesses who were called at the evidentiary hearing in that case. These witnesses established that there had been increases in the percentage of Blacks and Spanish-sumamed individuals in the Pomona district from 1975 to 1977, that this increase was expected to continue through 1980, and that 90 percent of the jurors called for service request that their service be limited to within 20 miles of their residence.
As noted, the appellate department decision in Rhymes was the first to find the makeup of the Pomona venires unconstitutionally underrepresented. The state appealed that decision, and in 1982, the Court of Appeal affirmed. (Rhymes, supra, 170 Cal.App.3d 1100.) That court, presaging our opinion in Harris, found that while several cases had previously concluded “that no reliable conclusion can be drawn when total population rather than voter population or eligible population is used [citations], uncertainty in the ratio between the eligible and the total population does not preclude a court from finding underrepresentation when total population is used as the base.” (Rhymes, supra, 170 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1111-1112, fn. omitted.) The court concluded that the statistical disparities in the case were “considerable for both Blacks and Hispanics.” (Id., at p. 1113.)
Moreover, “[n]o evidence was presented to indicate in any way that the data was not typical or representative of an ongoing condition.” (Rhymes, supra, 170 Cal.App.3d at p. 1113.) It could, therefore, “be safely assumed that such underrepresentation existed long before the specific study was performed in 1979 and that the underrepresentation can be expected to continue as long as the voter lists are the sole source for jury lists.” (Ibid.) The court applied its holding only to Ms. Rhymes “and thereafter . . . prospectively.” (Id., at p. 1114.)
This court granted hearing in Rhymes, held it for Harris, and retransferred it to the Court of Appeal approximately one year after Harris became final. The retransfer order directed the Court of Appeal to refile its opinion.6
*283The only difference between Rhymes and this case is that Rhymes was tried by a municipal court jury in the Pomona Judicial district, while appellant was tried by a superior court jury in that same district. However, the deputy jury commissioner testified in this case that superior and municipal court juries in Pomona are chosen from the same pool. Therefore, appellant’s prima facie showing, based on the record before the appellate department in Rhymes, was adequate. The only remaining question under Duren is whether the underrepresentation was due to “systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process.” (Duren, supra, 439 U.S. at p. 364 [58 L.Ed.2d at p. 587].)
Harris and Rhymes answer that question in the affirmative. In both cases, the “particular jury-selection process utilized” (Duren, supra, 439 U.S. at p. 366 [58 L.Ed.2d at p. 588])—random selection solely from voter registration lists—was the cause of the disparity. That, of course, was precisely the method used to select the venire here.
Accordingly, appellant made a prima facie showing “of a gross disparity resulting in a violation of [his] right to an impartial jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community. The burden then shift[ed] to the state to rebut the prima facie case.” (Harris, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 59.) Since, as in Harris, the state made no effort to rebut appellant’s prima facie showing, but argued only that the appellate department decision in Rhymes would be reversed on appeal, relief should be granted, assuming Harris and Rhymes apply in this case.
Before turning to that question and the related one of whether a reversal here is required, it is necessary to address the Attorney General’s contention that the 20-mile radius area around the Pomona courthouse, rather than the county as a whole, constituted the appropriate geographical basis for a prima facie showing under Duren, supra, 439 U.S. 357. Although, as in Harris, respondent vigorously argues that point, the question is not presented on the record before this court.7
Respondent insists that the prosecutor’s questions to the deputy jury commissioner and the portions of the Rhymes record submitted to the trial court reveal reliance on the “20-mile rule” area. The district attorney in this case elicited testimony from the commissioner that Pomona juries are selected from persons living within a 20-mile radius of the courthouse. Similarly, the jury commissioner in Rhymes testified that of the jurors who are *284ultimately selected for jury service, 98 percent serve on juries within 20 miles of their residence. Finally, respondent emphasizes that in the brief to the appellate department in Rhymes, the district attorney argued “in part” that the 20-mile radius was the proper focus for evaluating underrepresentation.
The record does not support respondent’s position that the point was preserved below. At no time during the abbreviated hearing in the trial court did the prosecutor argue that the relevant community was the “20-mile rule” area. The jury commissioner’s testimony here and in Rhymes established only that a 20-mile rule existed, a fact obvious from a cursory reading of the Code of Civil Procedure. Yet at no time did the state rely on that testimony as a basis for claiming that the 20-mile rule governed resolution of this case or Rhymes.
Indeed, throughout both the appellate department and Court of Appeal proceedings in Rhymes, the state assumed that countywide statistics, rather than 20-mile area statistics, could be used in making a prima facie showing. Indeed, the district attorney’s brief in the appellate department was devoted almost exclusively to the claim that jury-eligibles, rather than total population, should be used in assessing the second Duren criterion. The brief assumed throughout, as the state did in Harris, that countywide, rather than district-wide or 20-mile area-wide statistics were the appropriate focus. Thus, except for the fact that they occurred in different courthouses, this case is on all fours with Harris and Rhymes on the issue of whether the state disputed the propriety of using countywide statistics.
II.
The next question is whether the holdings in Harris and Rhymes should be applied here. I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that Harris (and inferentially, Rhymes) should be held prospective only.8
The opinion in Harris expressly left the retroactivity question open and took “no position as to the disposition of other cases presenting issues concerning the representative character of juries selected from voter registration lists alone.” (Harris, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 59, fn. omitted.) The Court of Appeal in Rhymes explicitly made its ruling applicable to Rhymes and thereafter prospectively only. (Rhymes, supra, 170 Cal.App.3d at p. 1114.)
Harris itself has been applied both retroactively and prospectively. The Fifth Appellate District, in People v. Cantu (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 259 *285[207 Cal.Rptr. 460], held it prospective. There, the court accepted the parties’ concession that Harris established a “new rule” sanctioning the use of total population figures. (Id., at p. 268.) Thus, the court proceeded to apply the test set forth in Stovall v. Denno (1967) 388 U.S. 293, 2979 [18 L.Ed.2d 1199, 1203, 87 S.Ct. 1967], and concluded that the Harris rule was (1) “collateral to the fair determination of guilt or innocence,” (2) had been relied on extensively by law enforcement and (3) would result in substantial impact on the administration of justice if applied retroactively. However, the court noted that its answer to the first two Stovall factors did not actually require resolution of the third. (161 Cal.App.3d at pp. 269-271.)10
The same court considered a Harris-type claim five months later in People v. Alexander (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1189 [210 Cal.Rptr. 306], There, the challenge was that the accused’s venire had been underrepresented by Blacks and Hispanics due to the methods employed by the jury commissioner’s office in excusing venirepersons for hardship. (Id., at p. 1198.) No claim was made that source lists—by then compiled from Department of Motor Vehicles and voter registration records (see Code Civ. Proc., § 204.7)—had resulted in underrepresentation. (163 Cal.App.3d at p. 1198.)
In reaching the conclusion that Alexander had made a prima facie showing in the trial court, the Court of Appeal noted that he had relied on total population statistics rather than “jury eligible” statistics. (Id., at p. 1202.) This was precisely the “new rule” the Cantu court said Harris had enunciated. Nevertheless, Alexander did apply that rule even though, as here, the trial proceedings occurred before Harris was decided. Alexander thus represents a case in which an accused was afforded the benefit of the Harris rule even though the showing was made before the Harris decision.11
Recently, in People v. Guerra (1984) 37 Cal.3d 385 [208 Cal.Rptr. 162, 690 P.2d 635], this court had occasion to reiterate the principles of retroac*286tivity. “To determine whether a decision should be given retroactive effect, the California courts first undertake a threshold inquiry: does the decision establish a next rule of law? If it does, the new rule may or may not be retroactive . . . but if it does not ‘no question of retroactivity arises,’ because there is no material change in the law.” (Id., at p. 399, quoting Donaldson v. Superior Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 24, 36 [196 Cal.Rptr. 704, 672 P.2d 110].) “ ‘As a rule, judicial decisions apply “retroactively.” [Citation.] Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.’ [Citation.]” (Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 399, quoting Solem v. Stumes (1984) 465 U.S. 638, 642 [79 L.Ed.2d 579, 586, 104 S.Ct. 1338].)
Decisions which “explain or refine the holding of a prior case, those which apply an existing precedent to a different fact situation, even if the result may be said to ‘extend’ the precedent, or those which draw a conclusion that was clearly implied in or anticipated by previous opinions” do not “establish a new rule of law” within the meaning of the retroactivity doctrine. (Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 399, citations omitted.)
Even if a decision establishes a “new rule,” it must be determined whether there was a prior rule to the contrary on which there was “justifiable reliance . . . .” (Ibid.) “And the emphasized word is crucial: ‘Unjustified “reliance” is no bar to retroactivity.’ [Citation.]” (Ibid., quoting Solem v. Stumes, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 646 [79 L.Ed.2d at p. 589].) There is no issue of retroactivity when the appellate court resolves a conflict between lower court decisions, or addresses an issue not previously presented to the courts. “In each of these cases there was no clear rule on which anyone could have justifiably relied.” (Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 400.)
Arguably, Harris established two “new” rules of law: first, that voter registration lists could no longer serve as the sole source of Los Angeles County venires; and second, that a prima facie showing of disparity could be based on total population, rather than jury-eligible figures.
As to the voter registration issue, Harris did not establish a new rule. The idea that voter registration lists could be held unconstitutionally invalid as the sole source of jury venires was noted in People v. Sirhan (1972) 7 Cal.3d 710 [102 Cal.Rptr. 385, 497 P.2d 1121], overruled on other grounds, Hawkins v. Superior Court (1978) 22 Cal. 3d 584, 593, footnote 7 [150 Cal.Rptr. 435, 586 P.2d 916]. Although the Sirhan court held the use of such lists valid in that case, it clearly left open the possibility that their use might be improper in a case where the accused was able to show that they “resulted ‘in the systematic exclusion of a “cognizable group or class of qualified citizens” ’ . . ., or that there was ‘discrimination in the compiling *287of such voter registration lists.’ . . . ‘ (Id., at pp. 749-750, citations and fn. omitted.)
Thus, Sirhan stands not as a blanket approval of the use of voter registration lists, but as a refusal to invalidate their use in the absence of sufficient evidence indicating that they have produced a constitutionally suspect venire. The accused in Harris presented that evidence, and this court found it sufficient to satisfy the standard in Sirhan. At most, Harris could be characterized as having drawn “a conclusion that was clearly implied in or anticipated by previous opinions” (Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 399)—not as having established any “new” rule.
The second aspect of Harris presents a more difficult problem. Several Court of Appeal cases before Harris had held the use of total population figures insufficient to establish a prima facie case of underrepresentation. (People v. Mooring (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 453, 458-460 [181 Cal.Rptr. 71]; People v. Remiro (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 809, 839-840 [153 Cal.Rptr. 89, 2 A.L.R.4th 1135]; People v. Spears (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 397, 404 [122 Cal.Rptr. 93]; People v. Powell (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 107, 129-130 [115 Cal.Rptr. 109]; see also People v. Lewis (1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 633, 646 [141 Cal.Rptr. 614].) Several others sanctioned the use of total population figures. (People v. Buford (1982) 132 Cal.App.3d 288, 291 [182 Cal.Rptr. 904]; People v. Newton (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 359, 389-390 [87 Cal.Rptr. 394]; People v. McDowell (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 864, 870 [104 Cal.Rptr. 181].)
It is questionable how much weight should be given to any of the foregoing cases which were decided before Taylor v. Louisiana, supra, 419 U.S. 522, since before that decision, a challenge to a jury venire based on under-representation required a showing of intentional discrimination on the part of the state. Thus, attention will focus on post -Taylor cases.
Of those rejecting the use of total population figures, only Mooring, supra, 129 Cal.App.3d 453 squarely stands for the sole proposition that an under-representation claim must be based on jury-eligible rather than total population figures.12 As the court stated, “Eligibility to serve on petit juries and raw census figures, without breakdown, may not be used as a basis for a showing of systematic discrimination. Figures can be deceptive and hence *288meaningless, and for that reason the comparison, to be meaningful, must be between those persons eligible as a cognizable class to sit as petit jurors and those in that class who are actually called.” (129 Cal.App.3d at p. 459.)
On the other side stands Buford, supra, 132 Cal.App.3d 288, the only published post -Taylor decision which sanctioned the use of total population figures.13 Buford involved the adequacy of the jury commissioner’s efforts in ensuring venires representative of Blacks in Contra Costa County. The Court of Appeal found that the appellant had made out a prima facie showing of underrepresentation under Duren, supra, 439 U.S. 357, based on a “marked” disparity between the percentage of Blacks who appeared on panels and the percentage of Blacks “in the general population of the county.” (Buford, supra, 132 Cal.App.3d at p. 296.) This disparity, Buford held, resulted from systematic exclusion. (Id., at p. 297.)
The Buford court did recognize that the use of total rather than eligible county figures made “no allowance for the impact of concededly permissible standards of eligibility.” (Id., at p. 298.) However, it excused this aspect of the appellant’s proof since “[i]t would be unrealistic and contrary to applicable principles ... to impose upon a defendant the burden of excluding all possible and permissible explanations for underrepresentation.” (Ibid.) The court also noted that the appellant’s case was not predicated on statistics alone, but also on “the informal procedure by which Contra Costa County goes about excusing prospective jurors from service.” (Ibid.)
This nonunanimous body of state authority must also be understood in the context of parallel federal authority. The statistical showing in Taylor was based on women in the county who were eligible for jury service (419 U.S. at p. 524 [42 L.Ed.2d at pp. 694-695]); however, Taylor did not discuss whether the use of total population figures was inappropriate.
Castaneda v. Partida (1977) 430 U.S. 482 [51 L.Ed.2d 498, 97 S.Ct. 1272] involved a challenge to Hispanic representation on a county grand jury in Texas. The court held that a prima facie showing, which was based on total county statistics, had been made (id., at pp. 495-496 [51 L.Ed.2d at pp. 511-512]), and that the state had failed to rebut the showing with any evidence as to the effect of ineligibility criteria on the pool considered. The court also noted that only a small part of the Hispanics in the county were *289noncitizens and therefore ineligible. (Id., at pp. 498-499 [51 L.Ed.2d at p. 513].)
Similarly, in Duren v. Missouri, supra, 439 U.S. 357, the court noted that the showing in Taylor had been made on jury-eligible statistics. (439 U.S. at p. 364 & fn. 21 [58 L.Ed.2d at p. 587 & fn. 21].) However, in concluding that Duren had made a prima facie showing, the court relied on census (i.e., total population) data. (Id., at p. 365 [58 L.Ed.2d at pp. 587-588].)
The court rejected the state’s claim that more precise data should have been used. “Although the Missouri Supreme Court speculated that changing population patterns between 1970 and 1976 and unequal voter registration by men and women rendered the census figures a questionable frame of reference, there is no evidence whatsoever in the record to suggest that the 1970 census data significantly distorted the percentage of women in Jackson County at the time of trial.” (Duren, supra, 439 U.S. at p. 365, fn. omitted [58 L.Ed.2d at p. 587].) Nor was the failure to use voter registration data (which would have excluded those then ineligible to vote (under 21 years)) fatal: “the fair-cross-section requirement involves a comparison of the makeup of jury venires or other sources from which jurors are drawn with the makeup of the community, not of voter registration lists.” (439 U.S. at p. 365, fn. 23 [58 L.Ed.2d at p. 587, fn. 23], italics in original.)
What this review indicates is that while the Supreme Court had not decided—at least prior to this court’s Harris opinion—whether a prima facie showing of underrepresentation had to be based on jury-eligible statistics, it had clearly permitted an accused to make such a showing based on total population figures. Indeed, even the Harris plurality read Duren as indicating that such a showing was permissible. (Harris, supra, 36 Cal.3d at pp. 55-56.)
Therefore, on the jury-eligible versus total population issue, it must be concluded either that Harris resolved a conflict between Mooring, supra, 129 Cal.App.3d 453, and Buford, supra, 132 Cal.App.3d 288 (without explicitly mentioning the conflict), or that there was no “prior rule” on which reliance was “justifiable” because of the federal authority sanctioning the use of total population figures. (Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.3d at pp. 399, 400.)
On both the voter registration and total population aspects of Harris, then, “the ordinary assumption of retrospective operation” (Donaldson v. Superior Court, supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 37) must come into play. Harris, therefore, should be held applicable to all cases pending on direct review *290when it was decided in which a prima facie showing of underrepresentation due to systematic exclusion of a cognizable group was made. People v. Cantu, supra, 161 Cal.App.3d 259, People v. Pendleton, supra, 167 Cal.App.3d 413, and People v. Brown, supra, 169 Cal.App.3d 728, if they were pending on direct review when Harris was decided, and to the extent they are inconsistent with this rule, should accordingly be disapproved.14
Even assuming, however, that Harris should be held prospective only, the question of whether this court should hold Harris inapplicable to the present case remains. Both this court and the United States Supreme Court have, on occasion, permitted individuals facing the death penalty to take advantage of rulings announced subsequent to trial when the ruling would not otherwise be given retroactive effect. For example, in People v. Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d 258, the court held its rule applicable to Wheeler, an appellant in a companion case (see People v. Johnson (1978) 22 Cal. 3d 296 [148 Cal.Rptr. 915]) “and to any defendant now or hereafter under sentence of death.” (Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p.283, fn. 31; see People v. Allen (1979) 23 Cal.3d 286, 294, fn. 3 [152 Cal.Rptr. 454, 590 P.2d 30] [so applying Wheeler].)
Similarly, in In re Jackson (1964) 61 Cal.2d 500 [39 Cal.Rptr. 220, 393 P.2d 420], this court vacated a death sentence by applying People v. Morse (1964) 60 Cal.2d 631 [36 Cal.Rptr. 201, 388 P.2d 33, 12 A.L.R.3d 810] retroactively. The court reasoned that “[w]e cannot accept the paradox that would occur if defendant Morse, whose appeal overrules the precedent under which he was erroneously sentenced, obtains a new penalty trial, but petitioner Jackson, sentenced under the same precedent, must suffer death in a grim sequence of judicial error.” (61 Cal.2d at p. 507, fn. omitted.)
Finally, the United States Supreme Court made its holding in Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968) 391 U.S. 510 [20 L.Ed.2d 776, 88 S.Ct. 1770] retroactive. (Id., at p. 523, fn. 22 [20 L.Ed.2d at p. 785, fn. 22].) In In re Eli *291(1969) 71 Cal.2d 214, 215-217, 219 [77 Cal.Rptr. 665, 454 P.2d 337], this court applied that ruling to an individual whose death sentence the court had previously affirmed.
As appellant notes, “[i]t is the universal experience in the administration of criminal justice that those charged with capital offenses are granted special considerations.” (Griffin v. Illinois (1956) 351 U.S. 12, 28 [100 L.Ed. 891, 904, 76 S.Ct. 585, 55 A.L.R.2d 1055] (dis. opn. of Burton & Minton, JJ.).) A “capital case exception” to a rule of prospectivity of Harris claims would thus appear fair and consistent with established principles affording capitally condemned individuals the retroactive benefit of favorable rulings.15
One final point should be made. Harris’s judgment of death was filed on September 3, 1980. The judgment of death here was filed on April 21, 1981, eight months later. Because of the necessity to conduct a second penalty phase after the first penalty phase jury deadlocked, it is likely that Harris and appellant challenged their respective venires around the same time.
The only real difference in the cases is the speed with which the appellate record in Harris was certified and the decision of this court was filed. The record in Harris was certified within seven months of the judgment of death and the opinion was filed in April of 1984. The record here was not finally certified until April 26, 1985—nearly four years after the judgment of death—in part because the trial judge, according to appellant, “continued the record correction proceedings which were needed to add the jury challenge evidence to the record on appeal.” That appellant should be denied relief on the sole ground that Harris, rather than this case, fortuitously became the vehicle to resolve the underrepresentation issue, is an exceedingly arbitrary result.
In sum, this court should hold that Harris and Rhymes apply to appellant’s case.
III.
The three members of the Harris plurality agreed that the trial court’s failure to rule that Harris had made a prima facie showing of underrepre*292sentation was prejudicial per se. (See Harris, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 59; People v. Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 283.) Since this case is on all fours with Harris, appellant’s conviction should be reversed.
The question of remedy was raised in Harris and the Attorney General has argued that point here. Therefore, the issue of remand should be addressed.
In his concurring opinion in Harris, Justice Grodin advocated a remand under the authority of Penal Code section 1260.16 That procedure would have permitted the state to rebut Harris’s prima facie showing before the trial court. “Upon full consideration of relevant evidence [the trial court] might [conclude] that ‘no disparity of constitutional significance exists,’ or that ‘even with the use of multiple sources and all other practical means, a certain level of disparity is unavoidable,’ or that the underrepresentation which does exist is justified by a showing of overriding state interest.” (36 Cal.3d at p. 72, quoting plur. opn., at p. 59.)
One Court of Appeal has already opted for the remand solution. People v. Alexander, supra, 163 Cal.App.3d 1189 was a pre-Harris Kern County case in which the Court of Appeal held the accused made a prima facie showing as to underrepresentation. That court remanded and ordered the trial court to take further evidence on both present and past jury selection practices. The Court of Appeal directed the trial court to decide “if the County of Kern was and is doing all that it reasonably may be expected to do to assure a trial jury representing a fair cross-section of the county . . . .” (163 Cal.App.3d at p. 1206.) Such a disposition was deemed appropriate in view of the fact that in the trial court “practically no rebuttal evidence was presented by the People, and it [was] not entirely clear that more [could] be presented. . . .” (Id., at p. 1203.) In addition, ‘[t]he People apparently relied upon [the] pre-Harris rule. . . .” (Id., at p. 1204.)17
In Rhymes, this court’s retransfer order directing the Court of Appeal to refile the opinion resulted in reversal of Rhymes’s conviction. (See 170 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1103, 1114.) That result was mandated even though a remand for the purpose of permitting the state to rebut the prima facie showing of underrepresentation was certainly a well-known option. As a *293matter of fairness and consistency, this court should not accord appellant on automatic appeal any less relief than was accorded the misdemeanant in Rhymes in collateral proceedings.
Further, as appellant urges, there may be several practical problems with a remand here. The first is the passage of time. A remand would require the prosecution to conduct an investigation in 1987 as to the adequacy of procedures Los Angeles County officials were using in 1979 and 1980 to obtain representative juries in Pomona. Any such inquiry would have to span at least as long a period as appellant’s statistics did in order to be truly representative. To the extent that any of the information necessary to rebut appellant’s showing would depend on documents once in the jury commissioner’s possession, such documents may no longer be available. (See Gov. Code, § 26202 [requiring retention of data for two-year period only].)
A second problem is the enormity of such an undertaking. To the extent post-July 1981 statistics are relied upon on remand, the trial court would have to take into account the degree to which the expanded source pool (see Code Civ. Proc., § 204.7) has altered the disparities which appellant’s evidence indicated for the relevant period. The rebuttal showing would also require measuring the effect of the 20-mile rule on appellant’s prima facie showing (see.Harris, supra, 36 Cal.3d at pp. 48 (plur. opn.), 71, fn. 1 (conc. opn.)), and the extent to which jury-eligible figures—admittedly difficult to come by (see id., at pp. 53-54 (plur. opn.))—reduce the disparities which Dr. Butler found to exist.
Also, it is far from clear how much “judicial economy” (Harris, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 72 (conc. opn.)) would actually be fostered by a remand. A new penalty trial here is necessary in any event due to the trial court’s instruction on the Governor’s commutation power (maj. opn., ante, at pp. 270-273; People v. Montiel (1985) 39 Cal.3d 910, 928 [218 Cal.Rptr. 572, 705 P.2d 1248]; see People v. Ramos (1984) 37 Cal.3d 136, 155 [207 Cal.Rptr. 800, 689 P.2d 430]) and the instructions and argument regarding the scope of the jury’s sentencing discretion (maj. opn., ante, at pp. 273-276; People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512 [220 Cal.Rptr. 637, 709 P.2d 440]). That trial will, of necessity, involve the presentation of some, if not all, of the guilt phase evidence, as well as the death qualification of the jury. These procedures would also be required if a new guilt phase trial were conducted. Therefore, it is questionable whether judicial resources would really be saved as a result of a remand.
Finally, appellant argues that a remand would not be “proper” or “just under the circumstances.” (Pen. Code, § 1260.) He asserts that the state has consistently maintained that using voter registration lists as the sole *294source of jury venires and population figures based on juror eligibility is proper. The prosecutor’s only response to the merits of the motion here was that the appellate department decision in Rhymes would be reversed on appeal. Such categorical insistence on a position that was under question, he argues, makes a remand improper.
To support this claim, appellant points to Whiteley v. Warden (1971) 401 U.S. 560 [28 L.Ed.2d 306, 91 S.Ct. 1031], where the United States Supreme Court rejected a similar request to remand. In Whiteley, the accused prevailed on his claim—asserted at every stage of the proceedings—that incriminating evidence should have been suppressed as the result of an insufficient arrest warrant and the lack of probable cause. The state asserted before the high court—apparently for the first time in the case—that the magistrate who issued the warrant had additional information which would have supported the arrest.
Rejecting the request for remand, the high court stated: “Knowing the basis for petitioner’s constitutional claim, the State chose to try those proceedings on the record it had developed in the state courts. ... Its sole explanation for this state of affairs is that ‘the state has felt, based on precedent and logic, that no court would accept the legal reasoning of petitioner.’ ... In the circumstances of this case, that justification, as we have shown, is untenable.” (Id., at p. 569 [28 L.Ed.2d at p. 314]; accord Lorenzana v. Superior Court (1973) 9 Cal.3d 626, 640 [108 Cal.Rptr. 585, 511 P.2d 33] [state not entitled to reopening of the propriety of a search on the basis of “new legal theories”]); Panopulos v. Maderis (1956) 47 Cal.2d 337, 340-341 [303 P.2d 738] [party not permitted to advance new theories on appeal which contemplate factual situations “not put in issue or presented at the trial”].)
Given the foregoing considerations, a remand would be inappropriate here.
IV.
Appellant made a timely prima facie showing under Duren, supra, 439 U.S. 357 and Harris, supra, 36 Cal.3d 36, that his venire was underrepresented by Blacks because of the systematic exclusion of them by the state’s methods of venire selection. Since the prosecution failed to rebut that showing, and since the majority’s refusal to give appellant the benefit of the Harris rule is exceedingly arbitrary, I cannot join in the affirmance of the convictions and special circumstance finding.
Reynoso, J., concurred.

 A preliminary issue, that of the timeliness of appellant’s challenge to the venire, has been resolved correctly by the majority. (See maj. opn., ante, at pp. 262-263.)

 Although appellant has asserted that both Blacks and Hispanics were unconstitutionally underrepresented in his venire, he relied primarily on a decision of the Appellate Department of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (In re Rhymes, APHC 000042) which found that the venires in the Pomona Judicial District of the municipal court were unconstitutionally underrepresented by Blacks. That decision, rendered by then Superior Court Judge Robert Fainer, followed a hearing before a referee, granted Rhymes habeas corpus relief, and vacated her municipal court conviction. The court concluded that the use of voter registration lists as the single source of jury venires in the Pomona Judicial District “cannot meet the constitutional test. . . as to blacks[, and] will continue to result in the systematic exclusion of a fair and representative number of eligible blacks as potential jurors.”

 “Comparative disparity” is a standard which “measures how the use of voter lists alters the probability that a member of a particular cognizable group will be summoned to serve on a jury.” (Harris, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 47, fn. 2.) A comparative disparity of 43 percent for Blacks, for example, would mean that “a Black would have a 43 percent lesser chance of being on the jury panel for [a particular district] for the period [studied] than the percentage of Blacks in the population would suggest.” (Rhymes, supra, 170 Cal.App.3d at p. 1105.)
Another standard is “absolute disparity.” This standard “measures the difference between the proportion of the studied group in the overall population of presumptively eligible jurors and the proportion of the group appearing in the pool of jurors used by the state.” (Harris, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 47, fn. 2.) An absolute disparity of 4.6 percent for Blacks, for example, would mean that “there would be 4.6 percent fewer Blacks on the jury panels than there are in the county population based on [a selected] census.” (Rhymes, supra, 170 Cal.App.3d at p. 1104.)
A third test—the “statistical significance test”—describes “the probability disparity would appear by chance in a random draw from the population.” (Harris, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 47, fn. 2.) This test was not utilized in the studies relied on in Harris.

 Code of Civil Procedure section 203 provides in part that “in the County of Los Angeles no juror shall be required to serve at a distance greater than 20 miles from his or her residence.”

 Indeed, Justice Grodin’s recent majority opinion in People v. Balderas (1985) 41 Cal.3d 144, 181, footnote 15 [222 Cal.Rptr. 184, 711 P.2d 480], read Harris as standing for this proposition.

 The Court of Appeal originally filed Rhymes on March 25, 1982. Hearing was granted on May 27, 1982. The Court of Appeal opinion was refiled at the direction of this court on August 8, 1985.

 As the majority note, the question of the proper application of Harris in other cases where the 20-mile rule applies is pending before this court in Williams v. Superior Court (L.A. 32206, review granted June 20, 1986).

 Since traditional principles of retroactivity compel the application of Harris here, appellant’s alternative claim that the doctrine of collateral estoppel affords a basis for relief need not be addressed.

 The Stovall v. Denno test examines (1) the purpose to be served by the new standards, (2) the extent of the reliance by law enforcement authorities on the old standards, and (3) the effect of the administration of justice of a retroactive application for the new standards.

 Cantu was followed without discussion in People v. Pendleton (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 413 [212 Cal.Rptr. 524] and People v. Brown (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 728 [215 Cal.Rptr. 465].

 My colleagues dismiss Alexander on the grounds that it did not involve a challenge to the use of voter registration lists as a source for jury venires and did not discuss the retroactivity question “at all.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 265, fn. 5.)
This distinction misses the point. What the majority fail to glean from Alexander is its application—retroactively—of the Harris rule that total population figures, as opposed to jury-eligible population figures, could be used in resolving an underrepresentation claim. The fact that the claim in Alexander involved the jury commissioner’s practice of granting excuses for hardship rather than the compilation of jury lists from voter registration rolls is quite beside the point.

 Remiro rejected the challenge on the ground that the appellant had failed to prove that Blacks and Híspanles were underrepresented on voter lists or that those who failed to register to vote were a cognizable group. (89 Cal.App.3d at p. 840.) Lewis did reject the claim on the basis that the pool was overinclusive, but also rested its holding on the fact that the accused produced no evidence as to the number of Blacks who served on panels for any length of time. (74 Cal.App.3d at p. 646.)

 Of course, Rhymes, prior to being vacated by this court’s grant of hearing, explicitly sanctioned the use of total population figures. However, reliance on Rhymes by courts and local officials while it was in its “vacated state” would not have been “justifiable” within the meaning of Guerra. (See Cal. Rules of Court, former rules 976(d) [prohibiting publication of Court of Appeal opinions superseded by grant of hearing], 977 [prohibiting reliance on opinions not published].)

 The majority’s reliance on Daniel v. Louisiana (1975) 420 U.S. 31 [42 L.Ed.2d 790, 95 S.Ct. 704] for its “prospective-only” holding (maj. opn., ante, at pp. 287-290) is somewhat puzzling. While it is true that Daniel held Taylor v. Louisiana, supra, 419 U.S. 522, prospective only, it did so on the basis of the tripartite test of Stovall v. Denno, supra, 388 U.S. at page 297 [18 L.Ed.2d at page 1203] (see ante, fn. 9). However, as this court took pains to point out in People v. Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.3d at page 401, the Stovall inquiry takes place only after it has been established that “there can have been justifiable reliance on an old rule to the contrary. . . . “ As the foregoing discussion indicates, there was no “old rule” upholding the use of voter registration lists for all purposes, nor was there an old rule sanctioning the use of jury-eligible pools which the state could justifiably have relied on. In addition, the resolution of a conflict between Court of Appeal decisions—if indeed Harris resolves them—does not in itself provide grounds for a prospective-only holding (Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.3d at pp. 399-400). Accordingly, the majority’s reliance on Daniel’s invocation of the Stovall v. Denno test is misplaced.

 Admittedly, the paradox is more hypothetical in this case than it was in Jackson, supra, 61 Cal.2d 500. Here, there was error at the penalty phase requiring reversal of the death sentence. Therefore, failure to give appellant the benefit of a “capital case exception” to Harris's prospectivity would not mean the difference between affirming and reversing his death sentence. On the other hand, that same fact was deemed irrelevant by the Wheeler court when it enunciated its “capital case exception” to prospectivity. Indeed, in Allen this court did not determine whether a new penalty phase would have been required in the absence of Wheeler error, but reversed the entire judgment on that ground alone.

 Section 1260 provides in part: “The court may reverse, affirm, or modify a judgment or order appealed from . . . and may, if proper, remand the cause to the trial court for such further proceedings as may be just under the circumstances.”

 As Alexander notes (163 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1199-1200), People v. Buford, supra, 132 Cal.App.3d at page 299, also held that the appropriate remedy would normally be a remand; however, in view of the passage of time and the fact that Buford had served his sentence, the Court of Appeal deemed reversal the appropriate remedy there.