Irurita-Ramirez

United States v. Irurita-Ramirez

Good Law
838 F. Supp. 1385·94 Daily Journal DAR 238·1993 WL 502795·1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16944
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaNovember 24, 1993CR 92-814(A)-GLTCalifornia1,914 words

Opinion

Opinion

Taylor, J.

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION OBJECTING TO JURY VENIRE

This case evaluates General Order 336, the new jury selection plan used in the Central District of California, and concludes it is constitutional.

I. BACKGROUND

The Central District of California is composed of the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura. For many years eases in the Central District were tried in Los Angeles before a jury drawn from all seven counties. In the 1980’s, Congress established Santa Ana, in Orange County, as an additional place of holding court, and cases from the tri-counties area of Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties were thereafter eligible for hearing in Santa Ana. In 1992, Congress divided the Central District into three divisions. 28 U.S.C. § 84 (c). The Western Division contains Los Angeles, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura counties; the Southern Division contains Orange County; and the Eastern Division contains Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

On August 11, 1993, the Central District promulgated General Order 336, a new jury selection plan for the District. The plan was approved by the Judicial…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.