## Facts

- Cano Garcia was tried in Orange County Superior Court for burglary.
- During voir dire, two prospective jurors disclosed they were lesbians and worked for the same gay and lesbian foundation.
- The prosecutor exercised peremptory challenges to remove both prospective jurors.
- Defense counsel made a *Wheeler* motion, arguing the peremptory strikes were based on sexual orientation and therefore unconstitutional group discrimination in jury selection.
- The trial court denied the motion on the ground that “sexual preference is not a cognizable group” and did not require the prosecutor to provide nondiscriminatory reasons for the strikes.
- Garcia was convicted and appealed, challenging only the denial of the *Wheeler* motion.

## Issues

1. Whether lesbians (and, by implication, gay men) constitute a cognizable group under *People v. Wheeler* for purposes of limiting peremptory challenges based on group bias.
2. Whether the trial court erred by denying the *Wheeler* motion without requiring the prosecutor to state neutral reasons for striking the two jurors.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the conviction and remanded.
- The court held homosexuals are a cognizable group under *Wheeler*.
- The trial court committed legal error by ruling categorically that sexual orientation is not cognizable and by denying the motion without proceeding to require the prosecutor’s explanations.
- Because the record contained no stated neutral reasons for the strikes, the error required reversal under the *Wheeler* framework.

## Legal Principles

- Under California’s *Wheeler* doctrine, peremptory challenges may not be used to exclude jurors based on race, ethnicity, gender, or similar group bias, and the inquiry turns on whether the excluded group is “cognizable.”
- A *Wheeler* “cognizable group” analysis considers whether the group is identifiable, shares common interests or experiences relevant to potential bias, and faces a risk of exclusion that undermines the representative character of juries.
- When a defendant makes a prima facie showing that peremptory challenges were exercised against members of a cognizable group, the trial court must require the prosecutor to articulate nondiscriminatory reasons and then evaluate whether purposeful discrimination occurred.
- A trial court may not short-circuit the *Wheeler* procedure by rejecting, as a matter of law, the cognizability of a group that qualifies for protection.

## Conclusion

The court recognized homosexuals as a cognizable group for *Wheeler* purposes and held that the trial court’s refusal to require neutral explanations for strikes against two lesbian jurors was reversible error, requiring remand for further proceedings.


People v. Garcia, 77 Cal. App. 4th 1269, 92 Cal. Rptr. 2d 339 (Ct. App. 2000)