FYI...
Thursday, January 30, 2020 | 7:48 AM
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
350 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102
In People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258, this court held that racial
discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges is
unconstitutional -a conclusion subsequently embraced by the United States
Supreme Court in Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79. Racial
discrimination in the selection of jurors, Batson said, "harms not
only the accused whose life or liberty they are summoned to try,"
but also "the excluded juror" who is denied an important
opportunity to participate in civic life, as well as "the entire
community" upon whose confidence the fairness of our justice system
depends. This principle, which also applies to civil cases and extends to
other forms of invidious discrimination, has been repeatedly affirmed by
the high court and this court.
For more than 30 years, courts have applied the legal framework set forth
in Batson/Wheeler for ferreting out impermissible discrimination in the
use of peremptory challenges. In recent years, some states have adopted
or begun to consider additional measures designed to address perceived
shortcomings in the practical application of the Batson framework and to
better ensure that juries represent a cross-section of their communities.
Today we join this dialogue with the creation of the California Jury
Selection Work Group.
The purpose of this work group is to undertake a thoughtful,
inclusive study of how Batson/Wheeler operates in practice in California
and whether modifications or additional measures are warranted to address
impermissible discrimination against cognizable groups in jury selection.
Key questions include but are not limited to the following:
In light of the goal of eliminating improper discrimination in jury
selection, does a purposeful discrimination standard impose an
appropriate burden on litigants who attempt to show that a peremptory
challenge was motivated by improper considerations or on advocates called
upon to explain the basis for their peremptory challenges? What are the
pros and cons of possible alternatives?
To what extent does unconscious bias affect the jury selection process?
Can this unconscious bias be effectively addressed in jury selection, and
if so, how?
Does allowing peremptory challenges based on a prospective juror's
negative experiences or views of law enforcement or the justice system
result in disproportionate exclusion of jurors of certain backgrounds?
Does accepting other facially neutral grounds for peremptory challenges
have such an effect? If so, how if at all should these practices be
addressed?
Do current standards of appellate review of peremptory challenges in
California adequately serve the goals of Batson/Wheeler jurisprudence?
Are there other impediments to eliminating impermissible discrimination
in jury selection and better ensuring that juries represent a
cross-section of their communities? If so, how can these impediments be
addressed?
What kinds of training or guidance would assist advocates and judges in
promoting fairness in this area and in making a record that facilitates
sound appellate review?
Should the standard jury instructions that address bias be modified or
supplemented to provide more guidance to jurors in addressing bias during
the deliberation process? In the coming weeks, the Chief Justice will
appoint a diverse work group of stakeholders from across the state
-including judges, prosecutors, defense counsel, and other practitioners
in criminal and civil litigation -to study these questions through an
inclusive process with opportunities for public input and participation.
Source link:
https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/internal_redirect/cms.ipressroom.com.s3.amazonaws.com/262/files/20200/SupCt20200129.pdf
Thanks to Jennifer Friedman for spotting this one...