a jury representative of the county as a whole. The court held that a defendant has no constitutional right to a trial in the district where the crime is committed, but may be tried anywhere in the 4,000-square-mile county if a court so orders. The attorneys argued that blacks comprised 1.5% of the North County population, from which juries were established to hear cases, while blacks comprise 4.5% of the population countywide. The court maintained that the Sixth Amendment right of a fair trial does not limit governments ability to define the community from which jurors are selected. Albert J. Menaster, a Los Angeles Deputy Public Defender, stated that the decision on trial transfers conflicted with the historic American legal tradition of trying cases in the community where a crime occurred..giving the defendant a trial by peers and the immediate community a direct role in the case (Los Angeles Times, San Diego County Edition, Nov. 1989). The African American people are a minority to begin with, but to take a black man and locate his trial in an area of even fewer blacks deserves some attention and reconsideration. White Americans dont worry about discrimination of this intent because they are the majority. Surely, few would argue that if a white man accused of robbing a black mans home was sent to trial in a predominately black county with an almost all black jury his chances of acquittal would be slim.Another decision by U.S. District Judge Jack Tanner of Tacoma, on May 29, 1992, denied a request by federal public defender, Robert Mahler, to give him time to prove that minorities are under-represented in federal-court juries in Western Washington. Mahler asked for a 90-day investigation to inspect records followed by two-weeks to file motions to dismiss the indictment or begin the proceeding on the grounds of racial discrimination involving a Mexican defendant on drug charges. He presented an affidavit stating that less than...
