Opinion ID: 1189145
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Robert Guerrero

Text: Faller indicated that he excused Guerrero because he sat with his arms folded during the voir dire  which Faller felt indicated a closed relationship  and because Faller did not believe Guerrero was sincere in his answers. The majority holds that excluding Robert Guerrero based on his body language and mode of answering certain questions, is particularly untenable in light of Wheeler 's requirement of a showing of specific bias. ( Ante, at p. 692.) In so holding, the majority has  apparently inadvertently  substantially changed the law surrounding peremptory challenges. We recognized in Wheeler that a prosecutor may fear bias on the part of one juror because he has a record of prior arrests or has complained of police harassment, and on the part of another simply because his clothes or hair suggest an unconventional lifestyle.... Indeed, even less tangible evidence of potential bias may bring forth a peremptory challenge: either party may feel a mistrust of a juror's objectivity on no more than the `sudden impressions and unaccountable prejudices we are apt to conceive upon the bare looks and gestures of another' (4 Blackstone, Commentaries []353).... ( Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 275, italics added). We recently reaffirmed this proposition in People v. Hall (1983) 35 Cal.3d 161, 170 [197 Cal. Rptr. 71, 672 P.2d 854], where we held that A prosecutor may act freely on the basis of `hunches,' unless and until these acts create a prima facie case of group bias, and even then he may rebut the inference. Clearly, therefore, an attorney may excuse a prospective juror because of a gut feeling. When an attorney does so, his concern is that the juror may be biased against his client. The majority's rejection of body language as a basis for specific bias points up another reason why its evaluation of the trial court's ruling is quite unfair: the prosecutor was, of course, never asked to explain why he challenged 15 prospective jurors who were not Spanish surnamed. We have no way of knowing how many of those 15 exhibited unacceptable body language just as we have very few clues as to the other reasons why they were excused. The majority therefore expresses doubts about the sincerity of the prosecutor's explanations without knowing whether his reasons for challenging non-Hispanics were perhaps entirely consistent with those he gave for challenging the Spanish surnamed jurors. [4] Faller also felt that Guerrero's answers were evasive and indicated that he had something else on his mind regarding these subjects which he was not expressing, ... The trial court, which found this explanation to be credible, had had an opportunity to observe the prospective juror during voir dire  an advantage not shared by the majority which nevertheless feels that it is in a better position to judge Faller's credibility. The trial court could properly find that Faller had sustained his burden of justification for dismissing Guerrero.