Opinion ID: 1433861
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Prosecutor's Use of Peremptory Challenges to Excuse Jurors With Scruples About the Death Penalty

Text: Relying primarily on Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968) 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 and Wainwright v. Witt (1985) 469 U.S. 412, 105 S.Ct. 844, 83 L.Ed.2d 841, defendant contends the prosecutor violated various constitutional rights by using peremptory challenges to excuse prospective jurors who expressed scruples about imposing the death penalty. Witherspoon and Witt set forth the standard for determining whether the trial court properly excused prospective jurors for cause based on their attitudes toward capital punishment. (See, e.g., People v. Cox, supra, 53 Cal.3d at pp. 645-648, 280 Cal.Rptr. 692, 809 P.2d 351.) With respect to peremptory challenges, this court has consistently held such excusals do not implicate any constitutional guaranty. (See, e.g., People v. Champion, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 907, 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 547, 891 P.2d 93.) Defendant offers no persuasive reason to reexamine that determination. Consequently, counsel was not ineffective for failing to make an objection. (See post, at p. 437 of 75 Cal.Rptr.2d, at p. 399 of 956 P.2d.)