explaining that “disparate treatment of the members of the excluded group and the unchallenged jurors is indicative of group bias” (citing Hall, 35 Cal.3d at 168, 197 Cal.Rptr. 71, 672 P.2d 854)
How later courts described this case
- explaining that “disparate treatment of the members of the excluded group and the unchallenged jurors is indicative of group bias” (citing Hall, 35 Cal.3d at 168, 197 Cal.Rptr. 71, 672 P.2d 854)
- "Governmental categorization ... signifies more than simple utility in statistical compilation [but] a broader understanding that individuals bearing [Spanish] [sur]names represent a discrete segment of the population based on ethnic commonality."
- "To suggest, ... that either body language ... or a conclusory notion that a juror might not form his own opinion ... rises to the level of specific bias... is to reduce the constitutional guarantee to meaningless superficialities."
- "Spanish-surnamed" is sufficiently descriptive of cognizable group to satisfy the Wheeler test for identifying prosecutorial abuse of peremptory challenge
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Disapproved on other grounds by People v. Johnson, 47 Cal. 3d 1194 (1989)
39 Cal.3d 667, 686 , disapproved on other grounds by People v. Johnson (1989) 47 Cal.3d 1194
Disapproved on other grounds by People v. Montiel, 5 Cal. 4th 877 (1993)
39 Cal.3d 667 (Trevino), disapproved on other grounds in People v. Montiel (1993) 5 Cal.4th 877
The opinion
LUCAS, J.
I concur in the judgment dismissing the charges against defendant Rivas, based on the insubstantiality of the evidence against him.
I dissent, however, to the reversal of the judgment as to defendant Trevino. For the reasons aptly stated by Justice Kaus in his concurring and dissenting opinion, the trial court properly ruled that any inference of group bias was rebutted by the prosecutor. In addition, and unlike Justice Kaus, I believe that People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 890 , 583 P.2d 748 ], was incorrectly decided and should be reexamined. (See id., at p. 288 et seq. [dis. opn. by Richardson, J.].)