Is Race Really the Most Important Thing About a Defendant? Gail Heriot

This seems like a mistake to me.  Evidently the California Supreme Court has issued a stay that prevents a murder trial from proceeding in Lake County until the Court has had time to review the defendant’s request for a change in venue.  The sole basis for a change in venue appears to be that the defendant is African American and Lake County has few African American residents.  Significantly, the crime took place in Lake County, so it’s the obvious jurisdiction to hold the trial.  According to the San Francisco Chronicle:

It’s almost as if Lake County itself is on trial.

“There are few black people in Lake County, so people rely on stereotypes,” said defense attorney Stuart Hanlon of San Francisco.

Nonsense, retorts Lake County District Attorney Jon Hopkins. “Can you say a county is racist because it doesn’t have enough black people?” he asked.

The California Supreme Court, in a rare move, finally got involved in the war of words over the county’s demographics. Earlier this week, it halted the proceedings in a double homicide case and agreed to review Hanlon’s request for a change of venue, based on the “racial imbalance” of overwhelmingly white Lake County — a land where dirt roads and double-wides coexist with wine country aspirations.

The comment about double-wides strikes me as a bit uncalled for.  In a world in which unkind comments about race are strictly avoided, it’s odd that cracks about poor whites are considered permissible.  But the report seems to get the basic story right:  It’s highly unusual that the California Supreme Court would even think of ordering a change of venue in a case in which the defendant’s only argument is that not that many people in the county (around 2%) are the same race that he is.  Does a jury of his peers really mean a jury of African Americans?  There is no evidence in this case that African Americans who live in Lake County are going to be excluded from the jury.  There is no evidence that the citizens of Lake County will be disinclined to do justice in this case.  The whole argument is based on what the defendant’s attorney regards as unfavorable demographics. 

The case is an unusual one, but that should not be allowed to cloud the Court’s judgment on the narrow issue of venue before it.  Everyone agrees that the defendant–Renato Hughes–did not personally shoot his two boyhood pals.  The trigger was pulled instead by Shannon Edmonds–a white man, who has not been charged, because the district attorney concluded that he acted in self-defense as well as defense of his fiance and her son.

There is disagreement, however, as to how the situation came about.  Edmonds has testified that the trio invaded his home and demanded marijuana that he grew for medicinal purposes.  When he resisted they beat his fiance and her son with a metal baseball bat.  (The son was brain damaged as a result.) Edmonds shot Hughes’ colleagues to prevent them from killing someone. 

Hughes’ story is only slightly different.  He calls it a drug deal gone bad rather than a home invasion–but apparently does not deny the beatings.  He has been charged under a California’s felony murder law that makes co-perpetrators responsible for murder if their crimes are likely to provoke lethal resistance.  It’s not clear to me whether “drug deal gone bad” version of the events, if believed, will necessarily be enough to get him off the hook.  It may depend upon the details of how the deal went sour.

Whether one believes that felony murder rules, such as the one involved here, are good or bad policy is beside the point.  If the Chronicle story is accurate, the issue before the Court is whether a defendant should be entitled to a change of venue based solely on the fact that the county in which he is being tried has few potential jurors of his race.  As far as I can see, the answer, for both black and white defendants, ought to be that “no,” a defendant is not so entitled.

Of course, all the California Supreme Court has done so far is grant a stay that will allow it the time to consider the issue.  But that in itself is extremely rare.  And how much time is needed?