addressing improper racial discrimination through the use of peremptory strikes under People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d 258, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748 (1978), and stating that “it is unnecessary to establish the true racial identity of the challenged jurors; discrimination is more often based on appearances than verified racial descent, and a showing that the prosecution was systematically excusing persons who appear to be Black would establish a prima facie case under Wheeler”
How later courts described this case
- addressing improper racial discrimination through the use of peremptory strikes under People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d 258, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748 (1978), and stating that “it is unnecessary to establish the true racial identity of the challenged jurors; discrimination is more often based on appearances than verified racial descent, and a showing that the prosecution was systematically excusing persons who appear to be Black would establish a prima facie case under Wheeler”
- addressing improper racial discrimination through the use of peremptory strikes under People v. Wheeler, 583 P.2d 748 (Cal. 83 1978), and stating that “it is unnecessary to establish the true racial identity of the challenged jurors; discrimination is more often based on appearances than verified racial descent, and a showing that the prosecution was systematically excusing persons who appear to be Black would establish a prima facie case under Wheeler”
- court labeled affidavit filed by defense as “filed without permission,” sought no opposition, and affirmatively indicated that it took “no action” on the affidavit
- holding afri-can-american women to be a "cognizable group”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LUCAS, J.
I concur in the judgment, but only under the compulsion of People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 890 , 583 P.2d 748 ]. For the reasons expressed by Justice Richardson in his dissent in that case ( 22 Cal.3d at p. 288 ), Wheeler was incorrectly decided and should be reexamined.
Respondent’s petition for a rehearing was denied October 3, 1985, and the opinion was modified to read as printed above. Lucas, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.