Buford

*290 Opinion

This case presents important questions of continuing significance relating to the manner in which jurors are selected, and the nature of the showing which must be made by a defendant who claims that procedures utilized in the second phase of jury selection after compilation of the master list and prior to challenge, systematically result in the underrepresentation of a particular group on jury panels and venires, such as to deprive him of his right under the federal and state Constitutions to an impartial jury of his peers. (Taylor v. Louisiana (1975) 419 U.S. 522 [ 42 L.Ed.2d 690 , 95 S.Ct. 692 ]; Duren v. Missouri (1979) 439 U.S. 357 [ 58 L.Ed.2d 579 , 99 S.Ct. 664 ]; People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 890 , 583 P.2d 748 ].)

Appellant, confronting trial on burglary charges in Contra Costa County, challenged his jury on the ground that blacks were underrepresented on that jury and on other juries in Contra Costa County 1 as a result of systematic exclusion in the jury-selection process. In support of that challenge, he offered certain statistical and other evidence which we shall describe. The trial court, finding that evidence inadequate,…

This case presents important questions of continuing significance relating to the manner in which jurors are selected, and the nature of the showing which must be made by a defendant who claims that procedures utilized in the second phase of jury selection after compilation of the master list and prior to challenge, systematically result in the underrepresentation of a particular group on jury panels and venires, such as to deprive him of his right under the federal and state Constitutions to an impartial jury of his peers. ( Taylor v. Louisiana (1975) 419 U.S. 522 [ 42 L.Ed.2d 690 , 95 S.Ct. 692 ]; Duren v. Missouri (1979) 439 U.S. 357 [ 58 L.Ed.2d 579 , 99 S.Ct. 664 ]; People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 [ 148 Cal. Rptr. 890 , 583 P.2d 748 ].)

Appellant, confronting trial on burglary charges in Contra Costa County, challenged his jury on the ground that blacks were underrepresented on that jury and on other juries in Contra Costa County [1] as a result of systematic exclusion in the jury-selection process. In support of that challenge, he offered certain statistical and other evidence which we shall describe. The trial court, finding that evidence…

I respectfully dissent.

I would accept the superior court’s ruling as to the racial composition of the jury. There was no claim of bad faith, or improper “juggling” of jury lists or summons, or otherwise, on the part of the county. Blacks comprise 7.3 percent of the county’s total adult population. The jury commissioner’s “pretty good estimate” of “maybe nine [blacks] out of 209” actually serving on juries, as I compute it, is 4.3 percent, a not extraordinary disparity under the circumstances. Richmond, where most blacks reside, is at the opposite end of the county from the courthouse, 25 miles away. Many persons from that area simply do not respond to jury summons; others seek to be excused for “undue hardship” (see Code Civ. Proc., § 200), i.e., “no transportation,” “no person to care for small children,” “loss of wages,” “medical problems,” etc. Nearly allways the jury commissioner has no knowledge of the summoned person’s race.

It is significant that at oral argument Buford’s attorney’s only suggestion for improvement of the county’s jury selection process was that blacks be bussed from Richmond to the courthouse for jury service, a solution raising as many constitutional…