Opinion ID: 2551919
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The first Batson/Wheeler motion

Text: During jury selection, the defense charged that the prosecutor had exercised peremptory challenges against three prospective jurorsJose M, Jose C, and Armida S.solely because of their Hispanic ancestry or surnames, in violation of the federal and state Constitutions. (See Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79, 84-89, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69; People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258, 276-277, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748.) Based on this charge, the defense moved to dismiss the panel and begin jury selection anew. Finding that the defense had stated a prima facie case, the trial court asked the prosecutor to explain the reasons for the challenges. The prosecutor requested an ex parte hearing, out of the presence of defendant and defense counsel, to state the reasons for the peremptories. Over defense objection, the trial court agreed.
During the ex parte hearing, the prosecutor said he challenged M. because, during the death qualification voir dire, M. said he would look for other options when the prosecutor asked him could he exercise his discretion to impose the death penalty, and M. indicated that he thought it was the toughest penalty, and he would look for other options. The prosecutor said he also felt that [M.] was an extremely aggressive person and might hang the jury with his thoughts at that point.... Defendant alleges, and we agree, that the transcript of the death-qualification voir dire provides no support for either of these reasons. When defense counsel asked M. for his opinion on the death penalty, M. answered: Well, I guess I have an opinion on it. I mean, it's the mostthe hardestoh, what's the word I'm looking forpunishment you can give. When defense counsel asked M. to clarify whether he was for or against the death penalty, he replied: I would say I'm mixed. I would, you know, consider it and I would consider opposition to it. Defense counsel then explained how a jury is supposed to decide the penalty in a capital case, and M. said he could do that. Defense counsel asked: So you're saying you don't think you would have a problem returning either verdict? M. replied: No. In answer to further questioning by defense counsel, M. promised that he would engage in deliberations, that after doing that process he would definitely stand by his decision if he was convinced he was right and the others were wrong, but also that he would reanalyze his own decision if other jurors convinced him he was wrong. In reply to the prosecutor's questions, M. said he did not consider himself an overly sympathetic person, and he assured the prosecutor that he would listen to all the evidence that's presented from both sides, that he would attempt to arrive at a fair and impartial verdict whatever it is, that if the jury was hung up one way or the other he would back off' and listen to the other jurors and ask [him]self `Was I right or was I wrong?' In response to the prosecutor's question asking whether he was a strong enough person if he felt he was wrong to admit this out loud and change [his] vote, M. answered Certainly. The prosecutor then asked: Do you lean one way or the other on the death penalty, do you think? M. answered: Possibly slightly for it. Finally, the prosecutor asked M. whether he could return a death verdict against defendant if he's earned the death penalty. M. answered Yes.
During the ex parte hearing, the prosecutor said he challenged C. because, during the death qualification voir dire, C. indicated that he leaned away, or I thought he leaned away, from the death penalty from all that was said. The prosecutor added: Also, if the court will recall, Mr. [C] had indicated during [defense counsel's] questioning that he had had several fist fights out in the street. I don't know if the court recalls that or not, but he was talking about he and his brother being jumped and beaten up. The court said it did recall C. saying that. The prosecutor continued: I was very worried about a person that was out there. Maybe it wasn't his fault. I got the feeling that trouble rather followed Mr. [C] I felt uneasy with Mr. [C] being that he had been in so many fist fights, at least three that I think he had recalled, one was gang-related. It seems to me he might have been in an area where it was gang activity, I had an idea because of the fist fights and because he had been beaten up and so on. Also because there was great violence in this case, and fist fights in the cell, I asked Mr.[C] be excused on that basis. Defendant alleges that the record of the death-qualification voir dire provides no support for the prosecutor's statement that C. leaned away from the death penalty. When defense counsel asked whether he had thought about the death penalty, C. answered: I had given it some thought but I never come to a conclusion. I never had to form a strong opinion about it. C. agreed that he was not really strong pro death penalty, ... not strong anti-death penalty. During questioning by the prosecutor, C. said he had some friends that have very strong opinions for the death penalty. C. had discussions with his friends about this at work, but he usually did not take a position on the death penalty. C. explained: I'm kind of familiar with both sides, but I haven't taken a stand. Although there's been times when I have felt that thethere was a place for the death penalty. Asked by the prosecutor whether he lean[ed] away from it in most cases, C. answered: That's just the thing, you know, I've gone back and forth, because I think there's no mitigating circumstances, and sometimes I just think that, you know, there's just no other way to render justice. The prosecutor asked: The death penalty in some cases, in your mind, is appropriate and in other cases, life without parole is appropriate, is that right? C. answered, `Yes. The prosecutor then explained the process of penalty determination in a capital case, asking C. at various points whether he understood. The prosecutor then asked C. if he was a strong enough person to return a death verdict and affirm it in court in the presence of the defendant. C. replied, I think so. The prosecutor then said: You're really hesitating and it kind of worries me and I just want to know what's going on inside right now, because you're kind of smiling and because I know you're fishing in your mind for the rightthe right way to answer it truthfully. And I know that you're trying to be truthful. C. answered: I never thought that I'd get called into a case like this to begin with, being my first time ... and whatnot. So, I said it's not an easy decision to make and because it's such a decision to make, I can't just blurt out an answer. Finally, the prosecutor asked whether C. leaned one way or the other on the death penalty. C. answered: I think if I lean, it's toward the death penalty. During the general voir dire, in response to questions by defense counsel, C. described two incidents (not three, as the prosecutor later stated) in which he was involved in fights. He said the first incident happened a while back when he was probably around 15 or 16 or 17 years old, and there was three guys in another car, and some words were passed, what have you, and there was a chase ensued after that and [his] car stalled and he fought because two guys jumped on him. The second incident happened somewhere else, at a later date. He was walking down the street with his cousin when they bumped into two guys and they started a fight. His cousin hit one of them and then, out of the bushes came out about ten other guys. C. said the incidents would not affect his ability to be fair. The prosecutor did not question C. about these incidents or how they would affect his performance as a juror. Indeed, the prosecutor declined to question C. at all during general voir dire.
During the ex parte hearing, the prosecutor said he challenged S. because she worked for the Department of Social Services ... at least at one point and because she had argued with the prosecutor during the death-qualification voir dire. The prosecutor added: I asked her the same questions I was asking the other jurors about, `Could you do it? Would you do it?' And Miss [S.] backed up and started arguing with me about that. I think if you look the record up, the court will recall she and I just did not get along. We had, in fact, during [death-qualification voir dire] an argument about whether she was going to do it. She was very argumentative towards me. She was not towards [defense counsel]. That's why I excused Miss [S.] The record does not support the prosecutor's assertion that S. had worked for the Department of Social Services, although she stated on her questionnaire that one of her children did. The matter was not raised during general voir dire, at which the prosecutor declined to question S. at all. Defendant alleges that the transcript of the death-qualification voir dire fails to support the prosecutor's assertion that S. had argued with him. This is what the transcript shows: The prosecutor: [Defense counsel] was asking you about whether you would stick by your guns so to speak back there in the jury room. You understand that both [defense counsel] and myself want a decision in this matter. We're not asking you to change your mind just so that we can have a decision, but that in fact if you go back there and it's 10 to 2, 11 to 1, and you're the one, whichever way you're leaning, will you listen to the other jurors? S.: Yes, I would to a certain extent. The prosecutor: Only to a certain extent? S.: Well, yes. The prosecutor: Are you too proud to change your mind even if they S.: No. The prosecutor: Even if they show you you're wrong? S.: If they show me I'm wrong, I'm going to change my mind, yes. The prosecutor: That involves listening, that involves listening to the other jurors. S.: Yes. The prosecutor: Will you do that? S.: Yes. The prosecutor: We want a decision. And I'm not saying you're going to be hung up one way or the other. I'm just saying that let's say you go back there. Very often jurors go back into the jury room and not everybody sits down and says we think it should be this way or we think it should be that way. They're hung up at the beginning. They're decided, not hung up but decided. What we don't want you to do is get your ego involved so that you can't say, `You're right. Maybe I should change my mind.' We don't want that. We want a juror that will go back there and that will listen to both sides even though she may have made up her mind. She'll listen to both sides and then she'll, after having heard both sides, change her mind if she thinks it's warranted. Are you that type of juror? S.: I believe I am. The prosecutor: Are you a fair-minded person? S.: Yes, I am. The prosecutor: Incidentally, do you think you're an overly sympathetic person? S.: No. The prosecutor: The defense may try and prove to you that the death penalty is not warranted just on your sympathies alone and that's perfectly legal. You're allowed to do that. Do you think you're an overly sympathetic person that wouldn't give me a chance, and that would only consider sympathy and nothing else? S.: No. The prosecutor: Tell me something else. While you're considering whatever sympathy this defendant may put on before you, can you keep an open mind that you can also feel sympathy for four dead human beings if you find they died at the hands of the defendant in this matter? Will you keep this in mind also? S.: Yes. The prosecutor: And will you put that on the scale if you think it should be there? S.: Yes. The prosecutor: Ma'am, are you a strong enough personI intend to prove that death is the appropriate penalty, in this case. And if and only if I do that, are you a strong enough person to come back into this courtroom, sit down in that jury box, and look us all in the eye and pronounce that judgment. Can you do it? S.: I think so. It's The prosecutor: And will you do it if it is the right thing to do? S.: Yes. I would.
During the brief ex parte hearing, in which the prosecutor gave his reasons for exercising peremptory challenges against Prospective Jurors M, C, and S., the trial court did not ask the prosecutor any questions and did not remark on any discrepancies between the prosecutor's stated reasons and the prospective jurors' responses on voir dire or on their questionnaires. When proceedings resumed in the presence of defendant and defense counsel, the trial court denied the first Batson/Wheeler motion. The court said only that the prosecutor did provide an explanation with regard to the three peremptory challenges and that I think that there was a good excuse with regard to all of these people.