By Quinn Hogan and Neha Suri
WOODLAND, CA – In a jury trial held at Yolo County Superior Court this week, Judge Tom M. Dyer ruled against a motion filed by the defense alleging the jury selection process was systemically racially biased and had produced a jury that was not representative of the community.
The accused faces 14 felony and 12 enhancement charges regarding attempted murder and possession and assault with a machine gun after a road rage incident in February 2022, where he allegedly shot two individuals exiting an off-ramp on I-80.
Following the accused’s two years without bail in custody, jury selection has begun for the accused’s trial.
Deputy Public Defender Martha Sequeira filed a motion in limine to guarantee a fair trial after a jury selection hearing Wednesday morning, citing concerns that the “basis for selecting venire (jury) is flawed,” and that the jury selection process yielded a jury that does not represent a cross section of the community in which the accused is being tried.”
DDA Sequeira explained that out of the 96 people that were selected for the jury pool, there were zero Black or African American individuals, referring to the case of the People v. Myers, which demonstrated a disparity between voter records and jury makeup.
She added the California Racial Justice Act and new California Code of Civil Procedure laws indicate that statistical bias can demonstrate bias, and the aforementioned evidence of a disproportionate number of non-Black and non-African American jurists proves this.
DPD Sequeira argued the process by which potential jurors are allowed to be excused because of hardships contributed to systemic bias. She gave the example of transportation, saying that potential jurors might be excused if they expressed an inability to travel to court, even though the court is legally obligated to provide transportation.
Sequeira added this would cause the jury to contain fewer people of low income, who reasoned that “poor people are simply less likely to have cars.”
Similarly, DPD Sequeira stated many of the hardships claimed as potential hardships are financial, again resulting in a jury that might be on average more affluent than the actual community.
And because financial hardship disproportionately affects people of color, DPD Sequeira continued, this process would cause more people of color to be excused from juries and therefore create racial bias within the jury selection process.
Deputy District Attorney Frits Van Der Hoek countered DPD Sequeira’s remarks by pointing out that the same jury selection process has been in place in Yolo County since the pandemic and if there was a systematic problem, as suggested by the defense, it should have already been addressed.
The DDA also pointed out that DPD Sequeira had been absent for the initial jury draw, arguing that she should have voiced her concerns there.
DDA Van Der Hoek argued the issue presented by the defense is “not a statistical concern,” and not systemic. In citing the case of the People v. Myers, he stated that it “does not seem that the basis for selecting (jurors) is flawed,” as the defense claims, rather that there is a low statistical chance of such an unrepresentative jury occurring.
DDA Van Der Hoek also disagreed with the defense’s assertion there were no Black or African American jurists, with one jurist in question appearing to be Black or African American, despite the defense indicating the race of the jurist was never confirmed and they did not appear Black or African American to the defense.
In his decision, Judge Dyer referenced a “three-prong test” from the case of the People vs. Ramos. He agreed with the defense that the first element from the precedent was met, in regard to the accused belonging to a distinct group in the community, but disagreed that the last two elements were met.
Regarding the second element, whereas the representation of a group in jury panels is not fair and reasonable, Judge Dyer did not think the evidence the defense presented significantly proved this point.
Judge Dyer referred to the case of the People v. Wheeler, where the ruling concluded that the accused is entitled to a jury that is a cross section of community, but crucially stated that the jury does not have to mirror the demographic composition of the community or of the particular group with whom the accused identifies.
He also cited the case of the People v. Cunningham where it was found that an “absolute disparity of 30 percent” was not constitutionally significant enough to warrant a new jury.
In his concluding remarks, Judge Dyer stated that “systemic exclusion cannot be established if the only evidence was statistical,” and the “process articulated to the court was not deficient.”
