SAN FRANCISCO -- California courts make it too hard to prove discrimination in jury selection, a federal appeals court has ruled.
California judges require a defense lawyer who challenges the prosecutor's removal of a juror to show a "strong likelihood" of bias before the judge will order the prosecutor to give an explanation.The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said this method violates the U.S. Supreme Court's rules for the type of proof needed to require a hearing on juror challenges.
The nation's high court requires only evidence that creates a "reasonable inference" of bias before a hearing is ordered.
The California test, in effect at least since 1994, is "impermissibly stringent" and violates defendants' rights, said Judge William Fletcher in Wednesday's 3-0 appellate ruling.
The appeals court nevertheless upheld the convictions of two men for firing shots through an apartment door that wounded two Richmond police officers in May 1993.
The defendants were black. The jury included one black member, but two other blacks were removed by the prosecutor.
The defense failed to offer enough evidence of discrimination to justify a hearing into the removal of a black female juror, even under the more lenient federal standard, Fletcher said.