Montes v. Superior Court (2026): Jury-Selection Notes and Postconviction Discovery Under Penal Code § 1054.9

Quick answer: In Montes v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App., Sept. 21, 2026), the Fourth District held that California Penal Code § 1054.9, as amended effective January 1, 2026, no longer requires a postconviction defendant to make a prima facie Batson/Wheeler showing before obtaining the prosecution’s jury-selection notes. When the prosecution exercised peremptory challenges, a request for those notes shifts the burden to the prosecution to show good cause for withholding or redacting material.

That holding matters beyond traditional Batson/Wheeler litigation. Jury-selection notes may contain information relevant to claims under California’s Racial Justice Act, Penal Code § 745, particularly where the defense is investigating whether race, ethnicity, or national origin affected peremptory challenges or other jury-selection decisions.

What did Montes v. Superior Court hold?

Montes addressed a postconviction request for the prosecutor’s jury-selection notes. Earlier authority had treated a prima facie showing of racial bias as a prerequisite to production. The Court of Appeal concluded that the 2026 amendments to Penal Code § 1054.9 changed that rule.

• The prosecution’s jury-selection notes are expressly included within postconviction discovery materials.
• A defendant requesting those notes need not first prove a prima facie Batson/Wheeler violation.
• If the prosecution exercised peremptory challenges, the burden shifts to the prosecution to establish good cause to shield material from disclosure.
• If good cause exists, the court conducts an in-camera review and orders only necessary redactions.
• If the prosecution exercised no peremptory challenges, the statute identifies that circumstance as good cause to withhold the notes.

The court granted a writ of mandate and directed the superior court to reconsider the request under the amended statute. The published opinion is Montes v. Superior Court, E087426 (Sept. 21, 2026).

Why the 2026 amendment matters

Penal Code § 1054.9 governs important categories of postconviction discovery before an order to show cause has issued on habeas. The amended statute expanded access to discovery and expressly brought prosecution jury-selection notes within its scope. Montes treats that statutory change as eliminating the former prima facie prerequisite for obtaining those notes.

The practical consequence is important: a defendant does not have to prove the discrimination that the notes may help investigate before receiving access to the notes. Once the statutory request is properly made and peremptory challenges were exercised, the prosecution must either produce the notes or make the foundational showing required to justify protection or redaction.

How Montes interacts with the California Racial Justice Act

Montes is a Penal Code § 1054.9 discovery decision, not a merits decision finding an RJA violation. But its discovery rule can be highly relevant to RJA litigation. Jury-selection materials can matter when the factual theory concerns race-based peremptory challenges or the reasons offered for striking prospective jurors.

For broader discovery strategy under Penal Code § 745(d), see our guide to California Racial Justice Act discovery, good cause, and statistical evidence. For the separate rules governing objections to peremptory challenges in current California trials, see California jury selection in 2026: the RJA and Code of Civil Procedure § 231.7.

What can the prosecution redact?

Montes does not hold that every word in a prosecutor’s notes must automatically be disclosed. Section 1054.9 allows the prosecution to seek protection for material implicating legitimate case strategy. The prosecution must make a foundational proffer, and if the court finds good cause, the court conducts an in-camera review and orders appropriate redactions.

The opinion emphasizes an important limit: material that may show a discriminatory purpose should not be redacted merely because it appears in jury-selection notes. The dispute may therefore turn on separating legitimate strategy impressions from information bearing on the reasons for exercising a peremptory challenge.

What should defense counsel request?

Depending on the case, counsel may consider requesting handwritten and electronic jury-selection notes; juror rating sheets, strike lists, charts, and annotations; documents reflecting reasons for peremptory challenges; materials used to compare prospective jurors; records identifying prosecutors who participated in jury selection; and preserved voir-dire records needed to interpret the notes in context.

Those materials should be analyzed alongside the voir-dire transcript and the sequence of strikes. The notes are evidence to be interpreted in context, not a substitute for the complete jury-selection record.

Montes, Batson/Wheeler, CCP § 231.7, and the RJA are different inquiries

These doctrines overlap but should not be collapsed into one another. Batson and Wheeler address unconstitutional discrimination in peremptory challenges. Code of Civil Procedure § 231.7 changed the procedure for objections to peremptory challenges in California trials. Penal Code § 1054.9 governs specified postconviction discovery. The Racial Justice Act creates its own statutory causes of action, evidentiary standards, discovery rules, and remedies.

Montes is important because it removes a threshold obstacle from one part of that landscape: access to prosecution jury-selection notes in qualifying postconviction discovery.

Practice implications after Montes

• Do not assume a prima facie Batson/Wheeler showing is still required. Montes states that the former rule no longer governs requests under the amended § 1054.9.
• Identify whether peremptory challenges were exercised. That fact matters because the statute treats the absence of exercised peremptories as good cause to withhold the notes.
• Preserve the RJA theory separately. Obtaining jury-selection notes is a discovery step; it does not itself establish an RJA violation.
• Request the complete context. Notes should be compared with voir-dire answers, strike sequencing, explanations given in court, and similarly situated jurors.
• Challenge overbroad redactions. The statutory process protects legitimate strategy while preserving access to information relevant to potentially impermissible juror strikes.

Frequently asked questions

Does Montes require automatic disclosure of all prosecution jury notes?

No. The prosecution may assert good cause to shield information, after which the court may conduct an in-camera review and order necessary redactions.

Does a defendant need to prove racial discrimination before requesting the notes?

Under Montes and the amended § 1054.9, no prima facie Batson/Wheeler showing is required merely to obtain the prosecution’s jury-selection notes postconviction.

Is Montes itself an RJA merits decision?

No. It interprets postconviction discovery under Penal Code § 1054.9. Its importance to RJA practice is evidentiary and procedural: jury-selection notes may help investigate or prove an RJA theory, but the RJA claim must still satisfy its own statutory requirements.

Related California Racial Justice Act resources

• California Racial Justice Act (Penal Code § 745)
• Racial Justice Act Resources
• California Racial Justice Act habeas petitions in 2026
• People v. Williams (2026): RJA prima facie showings and statistics

Legal review: Okorie Okorocha, J.D., M.S., M.S. | Reviewed September 2026. This article provides general legal information and is not a substitute for case-specific legal advice.