What is the test for establishing an unconstitutional discrimination against young people in the selection process in the superior court?

What we have said has equal application to appellant's contention he established an unconstitutional discrimination against 'young people' [19 Cal.App.3d 911] in the grand jury selection process in the superior court hearing. We need not decide whether 'young people' constitute a legally cognizable group upon which to assert an equal protection of the laws argument. Even if we were to assume this premise, the evidence produced falls far short of showing systematic exclusion of 'young people' in the selection process. The statistical information presented pertained to the ages of the members of the 1970 Grand Jury only. As in People v. Newton, Supra, 8 Cal.App.3d 359, 389, 87 Cal.Rptr. 394; this evidence may have shown the particular grand jury which indicted appellant was made up of middle-aged persons, but it failed to establish a purposeful systematic exclusion of 'young people.'

Moreover, only 5 of the more than 20 superior court judges involved in the selection process testified concerning their practice in nominating persons for the grand jury list. Of these one judge indicated he attempted to choose retired persons. Another judge, on the other hand, made an effort to nominate young women. No evidence was presented of the selection practices with respect to age followed by the other 20 superior court judges. Purposeful discrimination resulting in systematic exclusion is not to be assumed or merely asserted. It must be proved, and the burden was on appellant to establish a prima facie case it existed by evidence produced at the hearing in the superior court. (People v. Newton, Supra, 8 Cal.App.3d 359, 389, 87

Page 149