People v. Burgener
California Supreme Court
29 Cal. 4th 833, 129 Cal. Rptr. 2d 747, 62 P.3d 1 (2003)
- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
Michael Burgener (defendant) killed a convenience-store clerk during a robbery. Burgener was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. However, the California Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for a new trial. During the selection of the second jury, Burgener moved to quash the jury venire, which is the group of jurors available to sit on his case’s jury panel. Burgener argued that the group of available jurors was not a fair cross-section of the community. Specifically, Burgener alleged that young and low-income adults were underrepresented in the group of potential jurors for his case. During the hearing on this motion, the court’s jury-services manager testified that: (1) her office was occasionally asked to send additional African-American jurors to supplement nondiverse panels and (2) one of the times this occurred was during the week that Burgener’s jury was being selected. The district attorney then requested that the court quash the jury venire and restart jury selection due to possible underrepresentation of African-Americans on Burgener’s jury panel. Burgener joined in the request. However, the trial court refused to quash the jury venire and restart jury selection. Burgener was again found guilty by the jury and sentenced to death. As a death penalty case, it was automatically appealed to the California Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Baxter, J.)
Concurrence (Kennard, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.