# People v. Wheeler

> California Supreme Court · September 25, 1978 · 22 Cal. 3d 258

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9853726

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES MICHAEL WHEELER Et Al., Defendants and Appellants
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 25, 1978
- **Citations:** 22 Cal. 3d 258; 148 Cal. Rptr. 890; 583 P.2d 748; 1978 Cal. LEXIS 287
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Bird
- **Judges:** Mosk, Bird
- **Cited by:** 1,314 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled in part by Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162 (2005).
- Negative treatments: 6
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9853726

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that when the right to an impartial jury has been violated, “no inquiry as to the sufficiency of the evidence to show guilt is indulged and a conviction by a jury so selected must be set aside”
- recognizing that members of a constitutionally protected group are “[c]ertainly . . . subject to challenges for cause and peremptory challenges on grounds of specific bias”
- explaining that a party who suspects his opponent is striking potential jurors based on group bias ''should make as complete a record of the circumstances as is feasible”
- explaining that a party who suspects his opponent is striking potential jurors based on group bias “should make as complete a record of the circumstances as is feasible”
- explaining that a party can make a prima facie case by “showing] that his opponent has struck most or all of the members of the identified group from the venire”

## Opinion text

BIRD, C. J., Concurring.
I agree with the result reached by the majority that the state’s use of peremptory challenges to remove prospective jurors on the sole ground of race violates the right to trial by jury drawn from a representative cross-section of the community under article I, section 16 of the California Constitution. I do not believe that the state can systematically exclude blacks from serving on a jury by the selective use of the peremptory challenge by the state’s representative, i.e., the prosecutor. However, I do not concur in the dicta in the majority opinion which suggest other restrictions on the use of peremptory challenges. The peremptory challenge is not a challenge for cause. The distinction between the two should not be blurred in our attempt to stop an unconstitutional practice.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9853726. Public record. Not legal advice.