Court Opinion

ID: 9720114
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:16:34.138314+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:13.267473
License: Public Domain

HOLMDAHL, J.
 I concur in the lead opinion for the reasons set forth in the concurring opinion of Justice Newsom. My concurrence is also with “reluctance” in substituting our judgment for that of the trial court and in recognition of the apparent mandate represented by People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 [148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748]. And, as with Justice Newsom, I restrict my concurrence to the “limited circumstances” of this case.
My reluctance in extending the Wheeler concept to civil cases is also based on concerns about the myriad of very practical and very difficult problems illustrated by the in-chambers discussions between the trial court and the attorneys in the case before us as to group identification of all prospective and all impaneled jurors as well as by the difficulties inherent in determining varying proportions of persons of various “identifiable groups” within counties and within judicial districts in counties.
I fully support the established principles concerning what is necessary for a fair trial, criminal or civil, including the general need and desirability that trial juries be drawn from representative cross-sections of the communities in which they serve.
The basic premise of Wheeler is idealistic and commendable. As applied to its facts and to the facts of the case before us, it is appropriate. Inevitably, however, its application from case to case will take the courts into the quagmire of quotas for groups that are difficult to define and even more difficult to *596quantify in the courtroom.1 The pursuit of judicial perfection will require both trial and appellate courts to provide speculative and impractical answers to artificial questions.
My concurrence is, therefore, limited to the narrow facts of the case before us.
A petition for a rehearing was denied July 1, 1983. On June 22 and July I, 1983, the opinion was modified to read as printed above. Holmdahl, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted. Respondents’ petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied, July 27, 1983. Richardson, J. , was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

An omen of the future is appellant’s argument that he was entitled to a jury panel reflecting the demographic composition of the community, which he claimed included an approximately 25 percent black population.