Jury Out on Grand Jurors

Ventura County judges are considering whether to adopt new procedures for selecting grand jurors in the wake of a court ruling that found the existing process is too male-dominated and does not reflect the county’s population.

Presiding Superior Court Judge Bruce A. Clark and Court Executive Officer Michael Planet plan to meet with the district attorney and the county’s chief administrator to discuss possible changes.

Attorneys say an overhaul of the grand jury system is overdue.

“The system has been growing progressively worse--not better,” said Deputy Public Defender Brian Vogel, whose motion to dismiss the indictment in a death-penalty murder case led to the recent ruling.

On Feb. 1, Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Frank J. Ochoa threw out the indictment of Michael Schultz after finding that the 2000-01 grand jury was selected from a male-dominated jury pool and did not represent a fair cross-section of the community as required by law.

Although the exclusion was not deliberate, the judge wrote, it was the result of a “defective” jury-selection process that relies on volunteers rather than jurors selected at random.

The decision, which prosecutors decided not to appeal, is expected to trigger additional legal challenges and could give some convicted criminals an issue on appeal.

In Ventura County, residents apply to serve on the grand jury and are selected by the county’s judges for a one-year term to investigate local government and return criminal indictments.

But the number of applicants has dwindled in recent years, leading to smaller and les diverse jury pools.

Last year, only 40 residents applied to serve on the grand jury. Of those, 36 were white and 28 were men. In the year prior, 49 people applied to serve on the 19-member panel. Of those, 38 were white and 36 were men.

State law directs that a proportionate number of applicants from each supervisorial district be represented in a list of potential grand jurors.

But for the past two years, the court was unable to comply with that rule because there were only two applicants from the 5th District, which includes Oxnard and contains the largest Latino population in Ventura County.

“The ruling just recognizes what has been obvious for years,” Vogel said. When it comes to the grand jury “there are not many Hispanics, there are not many women.”

Prosecutors and defense attorneys are awaiting a second ruling from Ochoa on a similar motion challenging the murder and rape indictment against Vincent Sanchez. That motion attacks the racial make-up of the 2001-02 grand jury.

Ventura attorney Oscar Gonzalez, a member of La Raza Lawyers of California, said he has long been concerned about the grand jury’s make-up. He wonders whether minorities have been able to get a fair hearing before a body that has been predominantly old, white and male.

And he worries that the selection process is at the root of the problem.

“There is a fatal flaw in the process,” said Gonzalez, a community activist who has long criticized Ventura County’s courts as lacking diversity.

“Something must be amiss if you are getting a pool which, looking at the demographics, is not reflective of the community,” he said. “The greatest asset a grand juror has is his or her own life experience, and the broader the base of experience you bring into that room, the healthier it is for everyone.”

By law, all counties must impanel at least one grand jury every year. But the California Penal Code also allows the use of a second grand jury to solely consider criminal indictments.

That grand jury is selected at random,. much like a trial jury, and may serve for a shorter term.

Most California courts have gone to this system, according to legal experts. But Ventura County is not among them.

“I think they are still using a grand jury system from years ago,” said Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor.

“Maybe they thought they were a smaller jurisdiction and could use a small-town approach.”

In 1994, two months after a suspect in a murder case unsuccessfully challenged the Ventura County grand jury’s racial make-up, Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury wrote a letter to the county Board of Supervisors urging court and county leaders to adopt a criminal grand jury system.

“First, it makes good legal sense,” Bradbury wrote. “Because the criminal grand jury would be drawn from our pool of potential trial jurors, it would automatically be representative of a cross-section of our community.”

Using such a procedure would allow the regular grand jury to concentrate on its role as a watchdog of local government, Bradbury argued, and reduce the amount of time court staff typically spends trying to recruit applicants,

In his ruling, Ochoa noted the district attorney’s request for a criminal grand jury and stated that the Ventura County Superior Court “has apparently refused.”

Planet, who took over as the court’s executive officer seven months ago, said he didn’t know whether the court refused or not. “The Superior Court is in the process of exploring the various alternatives to the way we select grand jurors on criminal cases,” Planet said.

“This isn’t the first time we’ve thought about it or talked about it, but when the issue is raised in a couple of cases, it gets us thinking.”

Logistical issues, such as cost and the length of service that would be required of criminal grand jurors, must be examined, he said. “We are collecting information from other California courts just to find out exactly what they do.”

Planet emphasized the hard work put in by grand jurors, who give up a year of time for a meager stipend of $20 a day, plus 36 cents a mile.

“The grand jurors in Ventura County provide an important service,” he said. “They spend countless hours in what is practically a full-time job-with very little pay or acknowledgment.”

Representation of Women Disparate

While Ventura County court officials begin to examine the selection process, prosecutors and defense lawyers are turning their attention to possible repercussions of Ochoa’s ruling.

The judge found that while women constituted 51.1% of the county’s jury-eligible population, they represented only 26.5% of the 2000-01 grand jury pool and only 22.2% of the 1999-2000 pool.

“The disparate representation of women,” he wrote, “was consistent throughout a five-year period. From 1995 through 2000, there were a total of 333 grand jury pool members in Ventura. Only 99 of 333 were women.”

Based on those findings, attorneys representing some of the 37 defendants indicted by the 2000-01 grand jury are already working on motions to quash the indictments.

“It will get the lawyers to take a second look, but it is not an automatic reversal or dismissal of the charges,” said Loyola’s Levenson. This could just be a bump in the procedural road.”

It could be a big bump in the case pending against Hells Angels leader George Christie Jr., who along with several members of the motorcycle club, is accused of peddling prescription drugs to teenagers on middle and high school campuses in Ventura and Ojai.

It took eight months for prosecutors to present the case to the grand jury, which in February 2001 charged 22 suspects on 132 criminal counts in eight separate indictments.

Several of those defendants have pleaded guilty. But Ochoa’s decision could force prosecutors to present the case against Christie and nine others during a preliminary hearing.

The same goes for murder charges pending against two skin-head gang members, David Ziesmer and Michael Bridgeford, and their friend, Bridget Callahan, who were indicted by the 2001 grand jury.

Ochoa’s finding that the grand jury has underrepresented women since 1995 could also give some convicted criminals a new issue on appeal.

In 1991, state lawmakers crafting the statute authorizing criminal grand juries noted that an indictment issued by an unrepresentative grand jury could undermine a conviction.

A report by the Senate Judiciary Committee reads: “The composition of the grand jury bringing an indictment may be challengeable upon appeal as to due process, failing to constitute a panel of ‘peers.’ To permit the creation of ‘criminal’ grand juries may afford the court an opportunity to fashion a panel more representative of the general population, immunizing it from future challenge and reducing the risk of successful appeal on a ‘technicality.’ ”

For now, only one case has been directly affected by Ochoa’s decision.

Schultz, a 32-year-old former Ventura appliance repairman, is scheduled to appear this week for a preliminary hearing on murder and rape charges. He is accused of strangling 44-year-old Cynthia Burger during a sexual assault and burglary of her Port Hueneme home in 1993.

If a judge finds there is sufficient evidence, Schultz’s case will proceed to trial. Prosecutors intend to seek the death penalty.

*

Times staff writer Fred Alvarez contributed to this report.