Opinion ID: 2624500
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Prospective Juror S.L.

Text: Prospective Juror S.L. supported the death penalty but not for every murder case. Question 59 of the questionnaire asked, Does it make any difference to you that the victim was a white woman and the defendant is an African-American man? She answered, As a white woman I would want to know why she was killed. When asked during voir dire to explain why the cross-racial nature of the crime would have such an impact on her, she stated, I don't know other than the fact that I would probably identify more with her, or might identify more with her because she was white. Defendant challenged S.L. for cause, arguing that her racial identification with the victim impaired her ability to be a fair and impartial juror. The court denied the challenge, reasoning that most people tend to identify with people of their own age, gender, race, and similar circumstances, but there was no indication that S.L.'s racial identification with the victim would impair her ability to be a fair and impartial juror. The record supports the court's decision. S.L. revealed during voir dire that she had mixed feelings about the death penalty and had opposed it for many years, but had changed her mind in recent years in light of several disturbing murder cases in San Diego, although she would not support the death penalty in every case. She struggled with her stance on the morality of the death penalty, had spoken to her husband and her fellow church members about it, and admitted she found it very difficult to write down in words her thoughts about the death penalty. She acknowledged initially she thought defendant should be put to death because he had already been convicted of the murder, but she indicated she knew very little about the case and might be persuaded to vote for life without the possibility of parole once she learned more. She stated, I'm still wavering. I would have to hear everything. She also indicated that since the beginning of the jury selection process, she had been focusing on what happened to the victim and wondering what were the facts of the case. A reasonable inference to be drawn from S.L.'s questionnaire answer is that it reflected not a racial bias that would impair her ability to be a fair and impartial juror but, rather, an acknowledgment that there were cross-racial elements in the crime and that she may have had questions as to whether race played a role in the murder. She apparently gave serious consideration to the morality of the death penalty, but the record does not reveal that any of her indecision was based on racial bias.