have had to be granted by the court, because Santa Monica would not have been a “representative cross section” of the Los Angeles community, which is required by law. But case law suggests that the motion would not have been granted.
In
Williams v. Superior Court
, 49 C. 3d 738 (1989), the defendant, Edward Williams, a black man, was charged with the first-degree murder of one Bruce Horton, a white man. The DA filed the case in Santa Monica (West District), because it was the locus in which the crime had been committed, and the defendant sought to have it transferred to the Central District in downtown Los Angeles on the ground that only 5.6 percent of the presumptively eligible jurors in the West District at the time were black, while 11.4 percent of the presumptively eligible jurors of Los Angeles County were black. Williams argued that the community from which a cross section of jurors should be chosen was the entire county of Los Angeles. The people argued that “the community” means the judicial district. The California Supreme Court accepted the people’s interpretation, affirming a lower appellate court’s ruling denying the defendant’s motion for a change of venue. The court said that “the [California Government] code sections relating to the establishment of superior court judicial districts and the sections relating to jury selection and management are easily harmonized. Read together, the statutes manifest an unmistakable legislative intent
that the courts of the district serve the population within its boundaries
. Use of the superior court judicial district as the appropriate ‘community’ in Los Angeles County effectuates this legislative purpose.” The court also found no federal constitutional limitation on the California legislature’s right to create its own communities for “representative cross section of the community” purposes, adding that having a judicial district serve as a community was particularly appropriate in dealing with “the practical problems posed by a far-flung megalopolis—Los Angeles County.”
If the Simpson case had been filed in Santa Monica, the presiding judge of the county’s criminal courts would have had the ultimate discretion to grant or deny the inevitable defense motion for a change of venue to downtown Los Angeles. But the consensus in the legal community is that he would have denied the motion, not just because of the
Williams
case precedent, but because the presiding judge rarely disturbs the district attorney’s decision on where to file a case in the county. Here, not only did the crime occur in the Santa Monica judicial district, but it is where Simpson lives. Moreover, Santa Monica being a much more affluent area than downtown, those sitting on a jury in Santa Monica would have been much closer, other than in race, to being Simpson’s peers than the jury which ultimately heard the case.
“The case belonged in Santa Monica,” says retired superior court judge Leonard Wolf, presiding judge in Santa Monica from 1986 to 1989. “And to say the case couldn’t have been tried in Santa Monica is simply wrong—it could have been tried there. A number of major criminal cases have been tried in Santa Monica.” Los Angeles County deputy district attorney Harvey Giss, a veteran prosecutor, says, “Anytime you have a tactical advantage, you’re a damned fool to give it up. You argue like crazy to remain in a particular locale if you think it is to your advantage. It’s like baseball. You play your percentages.”
One footnote to all of this. The wrongful-death civil action by the Goldman and Brown families against Simpson which commenced on September 17, 1996, will undoubtedly take several months to try and has been generating considerable media attention. This case is presently being tried in Santa Monica. The Michael Jackson child molestation civil lawsuit two years ago was also filed in Santa Monica. Pretrial motions had already been heard in
In
Williams v. Superior Court
, 49 C. 3d 738 (1989), the defendant, Edward Williams, a black man, was charged with the first-degree murder of one Bruce Horton, a white man. The DA filed the case in Santa Monica (West District), because it was the locus in which the crime had been committed, and the defendant sought to have it transferred to the Central District in downtown Los Angeles on the ground that only 5.6 percent of the presumptively eligible jurors in the West District at the time were black, while 11.4 percent of the presumptively eligible jurors of Los Angeles County were black. Williams argued that the community from which a cross section of jurors should be chosen was the entire county of Los Angeles. The people argued that “the community” means the judicial district. The California Supreme Court accepted the people’s interpretation, affirming a lower appellate court’s ruling denying the defendant’s motion for a change of venue. The court said that “the [California Government] code sections relating to the establishment of superior court judicial districts and the sections relating to jury selection and management are easily harmonized. Read together, the statutes manifest an unmistakable legislative intent
that the courts of the district serve the population within its boundaries
. Use of the superior court judicial district as the appropriate ‘community’ in Los Angeles County effectuates this legislative purpose.” The court also found no federal constitutional limitation on the California legislature’s right to create its own communities for “representative cross section of the community” purposes, adding that having a judicial district serve as a community was particularly appropriate in dealing with “the practical problems posed by a far-flung megalopolis—Los Angeles County.”
If the Simpson case had been filed in Santa Monica, the presiding judge of the county’s criminal courts would have had the ultimate discretion to grant or deny the inevitable defense motion for a change of venue to downtown Los Angeles. But the consensus in the legal community is that he would have denied the motion, not just because of the
Williams
case precedent, but because the presiding judge rarely disturbs the district attorney’s decision on where to file a case in the county. Here, not only did the crime occur in the Santa Monica judicial district, but it is where Simpson lives. Moreover, Santa Monica being a much more affluent area than downtown, those sitting on a jury in Santa Monica would have been much closer, other than in race, to being Simpson’s peers than the jury which ultimately heard the case.
“The case belonged in Santa Monica,” says retired superior court judge Leonard Wolf, presiding judge in Santa Monica from 1986 to 1989. “And to say the case couldn’t have been tried in Santa Monica is simply wrong—it could have been tried there. A number of major criminal cases have been tried in Santa Monica.” Los Angeles County deputy district attorney Harvey Giss, a veteran prosecutor, says, “Anytime you have a tactical advantage, you’re a damned fool to give it up. You argue like crazy to remain in a particular locale if you think it is to your advantage. It’s like baseball. You play your percentages.”
One footnote to all of this. The wrongful-death civil action by the Goldman and Brown families against Simpson which commenced on September 17, 1996, will undoubtedly take several months to try and has been generating considerable media attention. This case is presently being tried in Santa Monica. The Michael Jackson child molestation civil lawsuit two years ago was also filed in Santa Monica. Pretrial motions had already been heard in
Similar Books
