Court Opinion

ID: 9785864
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 22:44:33.754223+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:35.638272
License: Public Domain

KENNARD, J., Concurring.
In People v. Johnson (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1302 [1 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 71 P.3d 270], a majority of this court held that to make a prima facie showing that a prosecutor was unconstitutionally using peremptory challenges for a discriminatory purpose, a defendant must show “that it is more likely than not [that the prosecutor’s] peremptory challenges, if unexplained, were based on impermissible group bias.” (Id. at p. 1306.) I dissented, joined by Justice Werdegar, pointing out that the majority’s holding was inconsistent with the views of federal courts and the courts of other states, most of which permitted the defendant to establish a prima facie case by raising a reasonable inference of discrimination. (Id. at p. 1335 (dis. opn. of Kennard, J.); see id. at pp. 1328-1329 (dis. opn. of Werdegar, J.).) The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and held that a defendant need only produce evidence sufficient to permit the trial judge to draw an inference of group bias, rather than prove discrimination was more likely than not. (Johnson v. California (2005) 545 U.S. 162 [162 L.Ed.2d 129, 125 S.Ct. 2410, 2416-2417].)
The high court returned the case to this court for further proceedings. The question now is whether to order a limited remand to permit the trial court to determine whether the prosecutor’s challenges were based on group bias, or to remand for a new trial with a new jury. I agree with the majority that we should follow the federal courts’ limited remand practice. (See maj. opn., ante, at p. 1100.) Although past opinions of this court have asserted that such a remand is unrealistic when, as here, over six years have elapsed since the jury was selected (People v. Snow (1987) 44 Cal.3d 216 [242 Cal.Rptr. 477, 746 P.2d 452]; see People v. Hall (1983) 35 Cal.3d 161, 170-171 [197 Cal.Rptr. 71, 672 P.2d 854] [three years]), the feasibility of determining whether the prosecution’s peremptory challenges were based on impermissible group bias is a matter best left to the trial court after a remand of the case to that court.