Opinion ID: 1188941
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Prospective Juror William Montgomery

Text: (9) In stating his reasons for excusing Mr. Montgomery, the prosecutor said, [T]his juror is definitely against opposing the death penalty. He would never commit completely on that.... [H]e said if he was faced with the issue, he would most likely vote for life rather than death. The prosecutor said that he did not wish to run the risk of putting somebody on that panel that feels strongly that life imprisonment without the possibility of parole would be what they would lean to and probably vote for. The trial court found that the prosecutor's explanations were adequate and sufficient to justify the use of the peremptory challenge. The court also observed that just prior to this challenge, the prosecutor did accept the jury panel which included five [B]lacks. We have previously upheld the prosecutor's exercise of peremptory challenges against death penalty skeptics  i.e., prospective jurors who, although not excusable for cause under Witherspoon v. Illinois, supra, 391 U.S. 510, nevertheless expressed reservations about the death penalty.... ( People v. Walker, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 624; see People v. Pride (1992) 3 Cal.4th 195, 230 [10 Cal. Rptr.2d 636, 833 P.2d 643].) We see no reason to reconsider that conclusion here. The trial court acted within its discretion in finding the prosecutor's reasons race-neutral as to this juror.