Opinion ID: 1386274
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Excusal of Prospective Jurors on the People's Peremptory Challenge Assertedly in Violation of the United States and California Constitutions

Text: (13) During voir dire, as noted above, the People removed 22 prospective jurors and 4 prospective alternates by peremptory challenge. Now for the first time, defendant asserts that the prosecutor used his peremptories to systematically exclude all prospective jurors and prospective alternates  totaling 10 in number  who expressed reservations about capital punishment but were apparently not excludable for cause on the basis of actual bias. Defendant effectively contends that by acting as he did, the prosecutor violated the following provisions of the United States and California Constitutions  specifically, the due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and article I, sections 7 and 15; the Sixth Amendment and article I, section 16, with their guaranties of trial by an impartial jury and trial by a jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community; and the cruel and unusual punishments clauses of the Eighth Amendment and article I, section 17. But `[W]e see no ... constitutional infirmity in permitting peremptory challenges by both sides on the basis of specific juror attitudes on the death penalty. While a statute requiring exclusion of all jurors with any feeling against the death penalty produces a jury biased in favor of death [citation], we have no proof that a similar bias arises, on either guilt or penalty issues, when both parties are allowed to exercise their equal, limited numbers of peremptory challenges ... against jurors harboring specific attitudes they reasonably believe unfavorable. [Citation.] [¶] We recognize that a jury shorn of significant community viewpoints on an issue in the case is not ideally suited to the purpose and functioning of a jury in a criminal trial. [Citation.] That, however, is a result inherent in the parties' historic and important right to exclude a limited number of jurors for fear of bias.' (Italics in original.) ( People v. Gordon, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 1263, quoting People v. Turner (1984) 37 Cal.3d 302, 315 [208 Cal. Rptr. 196, 690 P.2d 669] (plur. opn.), overruled on another point in People v. Anderson (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1104, 1149 [240 Cal. Rptr. 585, 742 P.2d 1306].)