Montes v. Superior Court (2026): Jury Selection Notes and Postconviction Discovery

September 2026 update: In Montes v. Superior Court (Sept. 21, 2026, E087426), the California Court of Appeal held that a person seeking postconviction discovery no longer must make a prima facie showing of racial discrimination before obtaining the prosecution’s jury-selection notes under Penal Code section 1054.9. When the prosecution exercised peremptory challenges, a request for the notes shifts the burden to the prosecution to establish good cause for shielding or redacting them.

The decision matters for California postconviction practice and for development of claims under the California Racial Justice Act (Penal Code § 745). Jury-selection notes can contain information relevant to Batson/Wheeler issues, Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7, and potential Racial Justice Act claims involving jury selection.

What did Montes hold?

Montes interpreted the 2026 version of Penal Code section 1054.9 after Assembly Bill 1036 expanded postconviction discovery. The Court of Appeal concluded that the former rule requiring a prima facie Batson/Wheeler showing before a defendant could obtain prosecution jury-selection notes no longer applies.

Instead, current section 1054.9 expressly includes the prosecution’s jury-selection notes within the definition of discoverable materials. If the prosecution seeks to withhold or redact those notes, the prosecution must make the foundational showing required by the statute.

What changed on January 1, 2026?

Assembly Bill 1036, signed October 7, 2025, amended Penal Code section 1054.9 effective January 1, 2026. Among other changes, the statute now expressly provides that postconviction discovery materials include the prosecution’s jury-selection notes.

The statute also establishes a procedure when the prosecution believes there is good cause to shield the notes. The prosecution must make a foundational proffer explaining how information in the file would bear on case strategy. If the court finds good cause, the court conducts an in camera review and orders any necessary redactions.

The statute identifies one situation in which good cause is established directly: if the prosecution exercised no peremptory challenges during jury selection, that lack of peremptory strikes constitutes good cause to withhold the jury-selection notes.

Montes rejected the old prima facie requirement

Before the statutory amendment, cases including Box v. Superior Court had described a prima facie racial-bias showing as a prerequisite to obtaining prosecution jury-selection notes in postconviction discovery. Montes held that this requirement has been abrogated by the 2026 statutory language.

The important procedural point is therefore straightforward: when the prosecution used peremptory challenges, the request itself triggers the prosecution’s obligation either to produce the notes or to seek protection under the statutory good-cause procedure. The defendant does not first have to prove a prima facie Batson/Wheeler violation merely to gain access to the notes.

Why jury-selection notes matter to Racial Justice Act claims

The California Racial Justice Act prohibits the state from seeking or obtaining a criminal conviction or sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin. Depending on the facts, jury selection may implicate Penal Code section 745 through discriminatory treatment, racially discriminatory language, bias or animus, or disparities in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

Jury-selection notes can be important because they may document the prosecutor’s contemporaneous impressions, reasons for strikes, comparisons among prospective jurors, or other information bearing on whether race or ethnicity influenced the exercise of peremptory challenges. They can also provide a more complete record than the voir dire transcript standing alone.

For broader treatment of current jury-selection law, see California Jury Selection in 2026: Hazlett, Sanmiguel, the RJA, and CCP § 231.7.

How Montes fits with the 2026 RJA discovery cases

Montes is not limited to a Penal Code section 745 motion; it construes the broader postconviction-discovery statute in Penal Code section 1054.9. But the decision is highly relevant to RJA investigation because it makes one potentially important class of jury-selection evidence more accessible in postconviction cases.

The decision also complements In re Haney (2026), which addressed RJA discovery in preparation for a habeas petition after the Legislature amended Penal Code section 745(d) and section 1473. The combined practical lesson is that California’s 2026 statutory framework gives postconviction petitioners meaningful tools to develop the factual record before they are required to prove the ultimate RJA claim.

What does the prosecution have to show to redact the notes?

Under section 1054.9, subdivision (c)(4), the prosecution may seek to shield jury-selection notes by making a foundational proffer describing how information in the file would bear on case strategy. If good cause is shown, the court must conduct an in camera review and order necessary redactions.

Montes explains that this procedure can protect legitimate case-strategy information unrelated to an impermissible reason for striking a juror. At the same time, information that could reveal discriminatory motivation should not be redacted merely by labeling it work product or strategy.

Practical checklist after Montes

• Confirm that the conviction resulted in incarceration in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and that section 1054.9 applies.
• Document the required good-faith efforts to obtain discovery materials from trial counsel.
• Request the prosecution’s jury-selection notes expressly.
• Identify whether the prosecution exercised peremptory challenges.
• Obtain and review the voir dire transcript, Batson/Wheeler motions, rulings, and stated reasons for strikes.
• Compare the notes with the stated reasons for peremptory challenges and with similarly situated jurors who were accepted.
• Evaluate the evidence under Penal Code section 745 and, where applicable, Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7.
• If the prosecution claims good cause for withholding or redacting notes, require compliance with the statutory proffer and in camera review procedure.

Does Montes itself establish an RJA violation?

No. Montes addresses access to evidence. Obtaining jury-selection notes does not itself prove that a prosecutor acted with racial bias or that a Racial Justice Act violation occurred. The notes become part of the evidentiary record that counsel can compare against voir dire, strike patterns, prosecutor explanations, statistical evidence, and other relevant information.

Why the decision is important

Montes removes a circular obstacle from postconviction discovery. A petitioner no longer has to make a prima facie showing of jury-selection discrimination merely to obtain prosecution notes that may be important to determining whether discrimination occurred. The statutory scheme instead permits disclosure first, subject to a prosecution good-cause showing and judicial review of proposed redactions.

That change is particularly important in older cases where the trial record may contain only limited explanations for strikes, where trial counsel’s file is incomplete, or where a modern RJA claim requires development of evidence that was never litigated under the standards now governing California jury selection.

Primary authorities

• Montes v. Superior Court (2026) E087426, filed September 21, 2026 and certified for publication.
• Assembly Bill 1036 (2025–2026 Reg. Sess.), amending Penal Code section 1054.9.
• California Racial Justice Act Resources for the site’s current RJA case-law and statutory research map.

This article addresses California legal developments for research and educational purposes and is not a substitute for case-specific legal analysis.