Race Again Crops Up as Thorny Issue in Panel’s Makeup : Grand jury: Criticism has centered on predominate use of whites in cases involving minorities.

In rejecting the recommendations of the district attorney’s office and refusing to charge a white sheriff’s deputy with manslaughter in the shooting death of a black fellow officer, the Orange County Grand Jury finds itself once again at the center of a controversy involving race.

Last year, the grand jury system in Orange County was attacked as lacking ethnic diversity and racial sensitivity after it recommended a moratorium on all immigration to the United States.

The subsequent public outcry, primarily from Latino groups, drew the interest of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, which is investigating claims of institutional racism in Orange County.

More recently, attorneys in the murder case stemming from the bludgeoning death of high school honor student Stuart A. Tay argued loudly, but unsuccessfully, that the grand jury’s indictments against several Asian defendants in the case should be thrown out because Asians had been systematically excluded from serving on the grand jury.

A judge ruled there was no legal requirement for “quotas” on the jury, after a population expert testified during a hearing on the case that there appeared to have been a “systematic exclusion of Asians and other minorities” in assembling the jury.

When the next grand jury was impaneled last July 1, it consisted of 15 whites, two Latinos, one African American and one Native American. Their average age was 64. At least one Latino alternate has replaced the American Indian juror during the year. The two previous juries were overwhelmingly elderly and white.

Orange County’s population, according to the most recent census figures, is 65% white, 23% Latino, 10% Asian and 2% African American.

Although no evidence has surfaced in the shooting death of Deputy Darryn Robins to suggest that race played a part, minority groups raised concerns over the speed and thoroughness of the investigation.

Many were particularly upset by a lack of public information in the case and pushed unsuccessfully for state and federal civil rights investigations.

Marshall M. Schulman, one of the defense attorneys in the Tay case who had argued for greater diversity on the grand jury, said he has no reason to believe that race was a factor in the grand jury’s decision not to indict Deputy Brian P. Scanlan.

But he renewed his call to keep the grand jury out of the business of weighing indictments in criminal matters.

“The grand jury may be a fine watchdog group for governmental oversight,” he said. “But when it comes to indictments, we don’t need them.” Alluding to the total secrecy surrounding grand jury proceedings, Schulman said it was better to “get everything out in the open and heard in front of regular people sitting on a regular jury. Not just these handpicked old folks.”

The grand jury is a 19-member independent panel of citizens that serves mostly as a watchdog, in that it it analyzes and investigates claims of government waste and inefficiency. But the jury, whose members are selected by local judges, can also bring charges against defendants in criminal investigations.

Although representatives of the grand jury say they constantly seek a more diverse mix of applicants, they say few minorities are willing to tackle the job, which pays $25 each day the grand jury meets and often requires five-day workweeks.

In January, the grand jury produced a report calling on county officials to try to attract a larger pool of jury candidates by producing public service announcements, brochures, flyers and other advertisements.

There are indications that some of the measures may be working. Applications for the 1994-95 grand jury showed an increase in diversity in age, gender and race, some grand jurors said.

“There definitely needs to be more minorities on it. You do not get a cross section of the community,” said Jerry A. Matney, 61, who would have been on this year’s grand jury if not for a back injury that forced him to surrender his position. “The problem is, you’ve got to be wealthy, a housewife or retired.”

When the 1993-94 grand jury went through its weeklong training course last year, one member made the lack of minorities an issue, Matney said, “even to the point that this person wanted to help subsidize minorities to be on it.” Matney declined to name the individual.

Times staff writer Jeff Brazil contributed to this report.