Opinion ID: 3156494
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: State Court of Appeal

Text: The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s Batson ruling, relying on People v. Box, 23 Cal. 4th 1153, 1188 (2000). See People v. Shirley, 2007 WL 1302512 at  (Cal. Ct. App. May 4, 2007). The Court of Appeal quoted Box stating that “when the record ‘suggests grounds upon which the prosecutor might reasonably have challenged the jurors in question, we affirm.’” It concluded that there were two race-neutral reasons for dismissing L.L.: the prior misdemeanor conviction for fraud, and her possible familiarity with the defendant and one of his relatives. It also concluded that R.O.’s “age and corresponding lack of life experience” was a legitimate race-neutral reason for striking her. The state court added that any inference of discrimination with respect to the strike of R.O. was undermined by the fact that three young white veniremembers who “demonstrated a lack of life experience” were also struck. “[T]he record also shows,” the court noted, “that the individuals who were selected to sit on the jury were reasonably intelligent and had a good deal of work and/or life experience.” The state court observed that while another veniremember – one who was seated, as Juror Number 3 – “was a senior at ‘Sac State’ who lived with his parents, he also worked as the manager of a gym, a position that involves decision making.” Finally, it speculated that the prosecutor might have been seeking a “strategically balanced” jury, such that “one young juror on the panel was sufficient.” The state court’s reasons were not based on any representations made by the prosecutor but were inferred by the court from its examination of the jurors’ qualifications as contained in the record. 8 SHIRLEY V. YATES