Maybe the Courts of Appeal are doing a great job of clarifying the law because the Supreme Court yesterday had its fourth conference in a row without a straight grant. There hasn’t been a straight grant since the two on December 20. Notable actions yesterday included:
Discriminatory jury selection. Over the dissenting recorded votes of Justices Goodwin Liu and Kelli Evans, the court denied review in People v. Ortiz. The Sixth District Court of Appeal’s published opinion in the case resolved several issues and Justices Liu and Evans didn’t explain why they wanted to hear the case, so the reason for their dissenting votes is not entirely clear (see here). However, it’s likely they were interested in the Sixth District’s rejecting a discrimination-in-jury-selection claim under 2020’s Assembly Bill 3070 (adding Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7), a statute the appellate court analyzed in detail. In a dissent two years ago, Justice Liu cited AB 3070 when stating, “The incongruity between our Batson jurisprudence and what is widely known about racial inequality in our justice system has spurred legislative reform.” (People v. Holmes, McClain and Newborn (2022) 12 Cal.5th 719, 844; see here.) (Related: “Justice Goodwin Liu Shared Views on Jury Selection With Lawmakers Weighing Bill”.)
Parole criteria. The court denied the habeas corpus petition in In re Green, but Justice Joshua Groban recorded a vote to issue an order to show cause. The petition, filed by Stanford Law School’s Three Strikes Project, stated the issue was, “What is the standard to be applied by the Board of Parole Hearings . . . in determining whether a person is suitable for parole?” It claimed that the lack of clear law has resulted in “arbitrary outcomes, conflicting rulings among lower courts, and a vague standard that violates Due Process.” The petition was filed on behalf of Cedric Green, who, the petition states, “is serving an indeterminate life sentence imposed under the Three Strikes law for a purse-snatch robbery he committed in 1997.” The Attorney General’s informal response, which the court requested, said that the petition “erroneously contends there is confusion in the appellate courts concerning the Board’s longstanding public-safety inquiry when determining parole suitability.” Green filed an informal traverse.
COVID remote jury deliberations. The court denied review in People v. Hampton, where the First District, Division One, in a published opinion, rejected the claim that a juror — who had tested positive for COVID — participating remotely in the last day of deliberations was unauthorized and unconstitutional. Division One held “any error in permitting the jury to deliberate remotely for one day was harmless because, as the record establishes, that day of deliberation did not result in a finding of guilt.” (On that last day, the jury discussed only an enhancement issue, on which it ended up hung.)
Criminal case grant-and-holds. There were four criminal case grant-and-holds: one more waiting for a decision in In re Vaquera (see here and here), which was argued in November; two more holding for People v. Lynch (see here); and one more on hold for People v. McCune (see here).
Salazar disposition. The court granted-and-transferred in one case, directing the Court of Appeal to reconsider its decision in light of the November decision in People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.4th 416.