Ruling Limits Racial-Grounds Jury Challenges

The state Supreme Court on Tuesday sharply limited racial challenges to jury-selection procedures, ruling that defense claims of discrimination must be supported by specific evidence of the systematic exclusion of minorities.

The court, upholding the death sentence of a convicted murderer from Contra Costa County, said that mere statistical under-representation of minorities among prospective jurors was not sufficient in itself to show bias.

When jury selection guidelines are racially neutral, the defendant must show that some aspect of those procedures are discriminatory or applied in a manner that excludes minorities before the prosecution can be forced to reply to such allegations.

The Constitution “forbids the exclusion of members of a cognizable class of jurors, but it does not require that (panels of prospective jurors) created by a neutral selection procedure be supplemented to achieve the goal of selection from a representative cross-section of the population,” Justice David N. Eagleson wrote for the court.

A vigorous dissent was issued by Justice Allen E. Broussard, the only black member of the court, who contended that evidence of consistent statistical disparities over a substantial period of time was sufficient to show “systematic exclusion.”

The decision, he said, conflicted with rulings for over 50 years upholding the right to a jury chosen from a representative cross-section. The court had reduced that right “to a hollow form of words” and evaded its responsibility to insure that it remained “a vital and effective safeguard” of individual rights, Broussard wrote.

Reject Appeal

The justices, by a 5-2 vote, rejected an appeal by Ronald Lee Bell, 40, who was found guilty and sentenced to death for the murder of a Richmond jewelry store clerk during a robbery in 1978.

Bell, who is black, challenged the local jury-selection process in effect at the time, noting that while the county’s population was 8% black, only about 3% of the panels of prospective jurors was black.

His lawyers contended that the disparity resulted from a since-abandoned policy that permitted local officials to make liberal use of hardship exemptions from jury duty. Since most blacks in the county lived over 20 miles from the courthouse, fewer blacks ended up serving because of transportation and other economic problems, Bell’s attorneys argued. The result, they concluded, was to deprive the defendant of his constitutional rights.

But the state high court found that while Bell had showed a statistical racial disparity, he did not offer proof that “any aspect of the selection process” was the probable cause of under-representation. His claims, the court said, were merely speculative.

‘Unreasonable Costs’

If hearings were required merely on the basis of statistical disparities, it would impose “unreasonable costs” on the judicial system in the form of courtroom time, delays and expense, Eagleson said.

Tuesday’s ruling drew pointed criticism from state Chief Deputy Public Defender Peter R. Silten, who said a rehearing will be sought before the justices. If that fails, he said, he would seek a review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Silten said the ruling would have a substantial adverse impact on defendants because, in most instances, they lack the financial resources required for detailed investigations of jury-selection procedures.

“We are quite surprised and disappointed,” he said. “This ruling would allow for the almost total exclusion of a minority group without violating the Constitution. . . . It is going to make it extremely difficult in many cases for a defendant to challenge jury selection.”

State Deputy Atty. Gen. Ronald Matthias rejected contentions that the decision will place an undue burden on defendants. The ruling, he said, provided “a very useful and correct clarification and interpretation of the law,” and would eliminate pretrial hearings based on no more than speculation about discriminatory procedures.

‘Accurate, Sober View’

The majority’s concern with the time and expense of such hearings, when there was nothing more than racial under-representation to suggest a constitutional violation, was a “very accurate and sober view of the situation,” Matthias said.

The decision came in a rare rehearing granted by the high court after it had first upheld Bell’s conviction and death sentence in a ruling issued in December, 1987.

In a 6-1 decision, the court, in an opinion by Justice Stanley Mosk, turned down Bell’s claims that he had been deprived of a fair trial because of improper jury selection procedures and misconduct by the prosecution.

In Tuesday’s ruling, the court extensively revised its findings on the jury issue, while rejecting other contentions by Bell as well.

But this time, the lead opinion was written by Eagleson, joined by Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas and Justice Edward A. Panelli. Justice Marcus M. Kaufman and retired Justice John A. Arguelles, sitting by special appointment, issued separate concurring opinions.

Mosk Changes Mind

Mosk, in turn, issued a dissent, saying that he had reassessed the case and now believed that Bell’s conviction and sentence should be overturned because of “deliberate and egregious” conduct by the prosecutor, Gary T. Yancey, who is now district attorney of Contra Costa County.

Among other things, Mosk said, the prosecutor had improperly told jurors about an unidentified informant’s hearsay statement implicating Bell in the crime.

In the 83 capital cases decided by the court in the last two years under Lucas, only two have been resulted in rehearings. In the other such action, the court agreed last May to reconsider its reversal of the death sentence of Bronte Lamont Wright for the 1981 murder of a 76-year-old Pasadena Sunday school teacher.