Opinion ID: 2551919
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The second Batson/Wheeler motion

Text: Later during voir dire, after the prosecution had exercised additional peremptory challenges, the defense renewed the Batson/Wheeler motion, charging that the prosecutor had exercised peremptory challenges against two more prospective jurorsRosalinda R. and Ernestina R. solely because of their Hispanic ancestry or surnames. Over defense objection, the trial court again held an ex parte hearing at which the prosecutor gave reasons for the challenges.
During the ex parte hearing, the prosecutor said he challenged Rosalinda R. because she had worked for L.A.P.D. for ten years, and the prosecutor did not know what effect that would have on her, and because she made a point of indicating to us her brother had been beaten by officers who had belonged to L.A.P.D., as a result of which the prosecutor felt uneasy with her. On the jury questionnaire, in answer to whether she or any friend or family member had been a crime victim, Rosalinda R. wrote: My brother was beaten by police officers. On general voir dire, she said she had worked as a clerk typist for L.A.P.D. (the Los Angeles Police Department) for 10 years, and as a result knew many police officers. She said this would have no effect, however, and she definitely could judge the testimony of a police officer the same as any other witness. She had not worked in the Hollywood division and did not recognize the names of any of the officers who would testify. She had worked in the records department. Regarding the incident with her brother, she said it had happened two years earlier, when she was no longer working for the police department, and the officers involved were sheriffs deputies, not police. She had no hard feelings about it, and she never got into it because she and her brother were not that close. She had enjoyed working for the police.
During the ex parte hearing, to explain his challenge of Ernestina R., the prosecutor said: Miss [R.] indicated she had a husband that was shot to death, which leads me to believe what effect that would have on the robbery [ sic ]. He said he had mixed emotions because [s]he seemed to be sympathetic to the defense, but at the same time she had a close cousin that had been shot to death in a robbery, and the prosecutor didn't know how to reconcile with those two. On her juror questionnaire, in answer to whether she or any friend or family member had been a crime victim, Ernestina R. wrote: My nephew was shot when he was trying to help some people that had been robbed. During general voir dire, she explained that the incident had occurred about two and one-half years earlier in East Los Angeles, where her nephew was living. The nephew was 28 years old, married, with young children. Some men committed a robbery in an apartment building, and her nephew saw them and chased them. They shot him, and he died on the spot. Ernestina R. did not know whether the culprits were apprehended, because she did not often see or visit the nephew's family. No one else close to her had ever been a victim of a violent crime. Thus, the person who had been shot was not, as the prosecutor had said, Ernestina R.'s husband or close cousin, but instead a nephew with whom she said she had not been particularly close. The prosecutor never explained how this experience would make her an unfavorable juror for the prosecutor, nor did the prosecutor explain the conclusory assertion that she seemed to be sympathetic to the defense. Respondent has not called our attention to anything in the record of voir dire that supports that assertion.
The transcript of the second ex parte hearing comprises a single page. As in the first ex parte hearing, the trial court did not question the prosecutor or remark on the apparent disparity between the prosecutor's stated reasons and what the record shows to have occurred during voir dire. When proceedings resumed in the presence of defendant and defense counsel, the court said only this: I did hear the explanations presented by the prosecutor with regard to peremptory challenges exercised against Rosalinda [R.] and Ernestina [R.], and they appear to be very valid reasons for those excuses. As a result of the prosecutor's peremptory challenges and the trial court's rulings, no Hispanic served on the jury that returned the verdict selecting the penalty of death.