Bradley v. JUDGES OF SUPERIOR CT. FOR CTY. OF LOS ANGELES

• Decision Date: 25 February 1974
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 73-408-WPG.
• Citation: 372 F. Supp. 26
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California
• Parties: Thomas BRADLEY, Mayor, City of Los Angeles, et al., Plaintiffs and Petitioners, v. JUDGES OF the SUPERIOR COURT FOR the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, as a class, represented by Alfred J. McCourtney, Jr., presiding Judge, Defendants and Respondents, William A. Goodwin, Jury Commissioner of the Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Defendant, Peter J. Pitchess, Sheriff of Los Angeles County, California, Respondent, Jacob Gunn, Warden, Folsom Prison, Respondent, James Garner, acting Warden, Deuel Vocational Institution, Respondent, Percy Lawrence Tolton et al., Intervenors.

372 F. Supp. 26

Thomas BRADLEY, Mayor, City of Los Angeles, et al., Plaintiffs and Petitioners, v. JUDGES OF the SUPERIOR COURT FOR the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, as a class, represented by Alfred J. McCourtney, Jr., presiding Judge, Defendants and Respondents William A. Goodwin, Jury Commissioner of the Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Defendant Peter J. Pitchess, Sheriff of Los Angeles County, California, Respondent Jacob Gunn, Warden, Folsom Prison, Respondent James Garner, acting Warden, Deuel Vocational Institution, Respondent, Percy Lawrence Tolton et al., Intervenors.

Civ. No. 73-408-WPG.

United States District Court, C. D. California.

February 25, 1974.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Thomas G. Neusom, Richard S. Buckley, Public Defender, G. Keith Wisot, Deputy Public Defender, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiffs and petitioners.

John D. Maharg, County Counsel, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants and respondents.

Robert F. Katz, Deputy Atty. Gen., Los Angeles, Cal., for respondents.

Harold Tamkin, Los Angeles, Cal., for intervenor-plaintiff-petitioner Percy Lawrence Tolton.

Patrick J. Sampson, La Verne, Cal., for intervenor-plaintiff-petitioner Bozzie B. Burton III.

Nancy Kelso, Santa Monica, Cal., for intervenor-plaintiff-petitioner Maurice Gilford Moore.

Howard J. Rubinroit, Los Angeles, Cal., for intervenor-plaintiff-petitioner Earl Jerry Butler.

Donald B. Black, Joseph H. Cummins, Fred Okrand, Tom Stanley, Stanley S. Delnick, Los Angeles, Cal., Langston Law Club, Santa Monica, Cal., Burton Marks, Beverly Hills, Cal., amicus curiae.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

WILLIAM P. GRAY, District Judge.

This action seeks to challenge the current method of selecting prospective jurors for service in the departments of the Los Angeles County Superior Court that are located in the Central District of the county. One group of plaintiffs (including the mayor of the City of Los Angeles and other prominent government officials) claims that the challenged system unconstitutionally diminishes their opportunities to serve as jurors, and they seek injunctive relief under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The remaining three plaintiffs (and four intervenors) have been convicted of crimes by juries in the Central District, and they pray for habeas corpus relief from the resulting imprisonment. For reasons hereinafter set forth, the civil rights action is dismissed and the petitions for habeas corpus are denied.

The Facts. Because of its large geographic size and population, Los Angeles County for several years has been divided into nine judicial districts, in each of which departments of the Superior Court are located. One of these is the Central District, which, as its name implies, contains the principal commercial and financial area of the City and County of Los Angeles, as well as the seats of their respective governments, including, of course, the main county courthouse.

For several years prior to December 23, 1969, prospective jurors for Superior Court trials in districts other than the Central District were selected, on a computerized random basis, from among residents of the respective districts. By contrast, prospective jurors for the Central District were obtained through a county-wide draw.¹

On December 23, 1969, the then Presiding Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court issued an order that jurors for the Central District were to be drawn only from that district. This order was given effect for about eighteen months, or until July 6, 1971, when it was terminated, and the county-wide draw for jurors in the Central District was resumed.

Because of the proportionately large numbers of black residents and residents of Mexican-American extraction living in particular areas of the Central District, the racial composition of juries serving in that district is substantially different when they are composed of local residents as compared with a county-wide draw. This is illustrated by the following table:

                                                        District     County-wide
                                                          Draw         Draw  
                Blacks
                    Residents of Central District        32%         3%
                    Non-residents of Central District     0          5
                    Total                                      32          8
                Mexican-Americans:
                    Residents of Central District         18         2
                    Non-residents of Central District      0         5
                    Total                                      18          7
                Whites and others:
                    Residents of Central District         50         6
                    Non-residents of Central District      0        79
                    Total                                      50         85
                                                              ____       ____
                                                              100%       100%
                

Thus, it appears that the proportion of blacks on the juries in the Central District has been reduced from 32% to 8% as a result of the return to the county-wide draw, and the reduction of Mexican-Americans has been from 18% to 7%.

The Asserted Justification For Restoration Of The County-Wide Draw. Both the then Presiding Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court and the judge who now holds that position have testified² that racial considerations played no part in the 1971 decision to restore the county-wide draw for the Central District, and this court accepts such testimony. The reasons advanced for the change appear to stem from the following:

1. Inasmuch as most of the major law firms have their principal offices in the Central District, most of the major litigation is conducted there. Many of these cases involve matters of county-wide interest and concern.

2. Because of the much greater facilities at the main courthouse and the larger number of judges available there, cases involving trials of anticipated long duration are transferred to the Central District, rather than impose strain on the normal operations of the transferring district (however, the recent increase in the numbers of judges in the other districts has diminished substantially the need for such transfers).

3. All grand jury indictments are filed in the Central District and the trials resulting therefrom are held there.

4. About 20% of the total population of the county lives in the Central District; by contrast, because of the above listed factors, about 60% of the county's jury trials, including 50% of all criminal trials, are held in that district. A local draw would put a disproportionate amount of the burden of jury duty upon the residents of the Central District.

5. As Presiding Justice Ford said, in an opinion upholding the challenged system, "The presence in the Central District of a body of jurors selected on a county-wide basis in accordance with the cross-sectional principle assures a defendant whose case is transferred to that district of a jury free from constitutional defects, irrespective of the place in the county at which the crime is claimed to have been committed or of the defendant's place of residence." Adams v. Superior Court, 27 Cal.App.3d 719, 731, 104 Cal.Rptr. 144, 153 (2d Dist. 1972).

6. The present system of county-wide draw for the Central District was in effect for many years. The change in 1969 was made by the then Presiding Judge on his own responsibility, and the Executive Committee of the Superior Court later had some doubt as to the legality of such action.

The Civil Rights Action. As has been noted above, under the present system, residents of the Central District are called for jury duty only in that district; but qualified residents of other districts are summoned to serve as jurors in their respective districts and also in the Central District. Thus, the latter are likely to be called upon more frequently than are the former. The plaintiffs seeking relief under the Civil Rights Act allege that they reside in the Central District and that the current system unconstitionally dilutes their rights to serve as jurors in Los Angeles County.

It is well established that action by a state in arbitrarily depriving a person of the opportunity to serve on a jury is a violation of a right secured by the United States Constitution and that federal courts have jurisdiction to grant relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Carter v. Greene County, 396 U.S. 320, 90 S.Ct. 518, 24 L.Ed.2d 549 (1970). It is equally clear that such jurisdiction includes the ability to give injunctive relief against state court proceedings. Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225, 92 S. Ct. 2151, 32 L.Ed.2d 705 (1972). Nonetheless, I am unable to conclude that this court is obliged to, or should, entertain the present action. Juries are being drawn daily in the courts of the Central District; the injunctive relief requested by the plaintiffs would seriously disrupt the orderly process of pending trial; and the jurisdiction to grant such relief does not foreclose giving careful consideration to the principles of equity and comity that are so important in the relationships between federal and state courts. See O'Shea v. Littleton, ___ U.S. ___, 94 S.Ct. 669, 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974).

Unlike the situation in Carter v. Greene County, supra, the state is not systematically excluding the plaintiffs, or anyone else, from jury service. The principal lament of the plaintiffs is simply that they would like to serve more often. This, of course, is commendable. However, insofar as I am aware, the alleged inequity in the present jury system that concerns the plaintiffs has never been brought officially to the attention of the court that adopted it. The matter here concerned is inherently a state problem, involving the manner in which the duties and privileges of jury service should be divided among the local citizens. The judges of the Superior Court share with the plaintiffs a genuine interest in the constant search for ways to improve the administration of justice in Los Angeles County. Principles of...