Opinion ID: 614681
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Juror Carrillo

Text: Carrillo, like Hernandez, expressed strong views in favor of the use of the death penalty. Defense counsel would not be sad to see Carrillo go, and thus was reasonable in not advancing a Wheeler motion. In his comparative juror analysis, Carrera notes that the district court stated there were two potential group bias-neutral reasons for challenging Carrillo: (1) the arrest of Carrillo’s son at age 13-14, or (2) the prosecutor’s alleged doubts about 18724 CARRERA v. AYERS Carrillo’s ability to vote for the death penalty. Carrera contends neither of these reasons could support a group biasneutral peremptory challenge. As to her son’s legal problems, Carrera accurately points to two other non-Hispanic jurors whose children had a criminal history, both of whom the prosecutor accepted. As to Carrillo’s supposed inability to vote for the death penalty, Carrera contends “there was no evidence in the record to support” Carrillo’s alleged opposition to the death penalty. But this actually proves that defense counsel was not ineffective in failing to raise a Wheeler motion. Even if defense counsel believed the prosecutor’s peremptory challenge was based on Carrillo being Hispanic, Carrera cannot show that counsel acted incompetently by failing to raise a Wheeler motion in response to a peremptory challenge of an unfavorable, prodeath penalty juror.