Opinion ID: 2624500
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Prospective Juror A.M.

Text: The first reason given by the prosecutor to justify his challenge to A.M. was that A.M. came from a family that did not have an abiding respect for the rule of law. Substantial evidence supports the statement, and the trial court could reasonably conclude it was race neutral: During voir dire, A.M. revealed his brother was in prison, and his daughter had been arrested for receiving stolen property and evidently prosecuted by the San Diego County District Attorney's Office. (8) The next reason given by the prosecutor was that A.M. had considerable sympathy for Black people on trial and thought the justice system was unfair to Blacks. Defense counsel argued that rather than being race neutral, the challenge of A.M. because of his attitudes about the treatment of Blacks in the justice system was itself race based. The court correctly ruled that a challenge based solely on the prospective juror's race is different from a challenge which may find its roots in part [in] the juror's attitude about the justice system and about society which may be race related. (See People v. Lewis and Oliver, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 1016 [a party does not offend Batson or Wheeler when it challenges prospective jurors who have shown orally, in writing, or through conduct in court, that they personally harbor biased views].) Substantial evidence supports the statement, and the trial court reasonably could conclude it was race neutral: A.M. did not expressly state as much, but his answers to three questions on the juror questionnaire indicate he harbored a skepticism regarding the fairness of the treatment of Blacks within the criminal justice system. Question 57 asked, Do you believe the death penalty law is administered fairly with respect to [Black men]? A.M. did not check either the Yes or No response, but wrote, Will all the facts be brought out for the jury? When asked in question 58 to explain why he thought Blacks make up a larger percentage of the prison population than of the general population, A.M. answered, In some cases the law is bias [ sic ]. Finally, question 75 asked, What do you believe are the major causes of crime in our society? A.M. answered, Society bias. Parents give a care attitude [ sic ]. The final reason given by the prosecutor was that A.M. had not risen above the rank of Petty Officer First Class after serving 20 years in the Navy. The prosecutor suggested that the reason for that was either A.M. was not smart enough to pass the tests that would have allowed him to rise in the ranks, or he may have felt he was discriminated against in the Navy because of his race, which the prosecutor linked to A.M.'s attitudes toward the treatment of Blacks in the justice system. The record reflects that A.M. did not graduate from high school and spent 20 years in the Navy as a Petty Officer First Class. Viewing these characteristics of A.M. in the light of his answers pertaining to his family's legal difficulties and his apparent sympathy for a Black defendant, the trial court's ruling that challenge of A.M. was unrelated to his race is supported by substantial evidence. The comparative juror analysis defendant suggests [12] does not further his claim. He suggests that seated Juror J.R., who was not Black, harbored an attitude similar to that of A.M. regarding the role race plays in the judicial system. He points to the portion of the record where the prosecutor discussed with the entire panel the verdict in the O.J. Simpson trial and the racial issues that arose therein. The prosecutor asked if there were any jurors for whom the situation in the O.J. Simpson verdict caused you to rethink your position regarding this case? ... That was a Black jury. Here as you look around you see this is a predominantly White jury. Anybody here that thinks race may play a role in this case? J.R. answered, The question I have is, if an all White jury would be truly of Mr. Hamilton's peers? The court explained that J.R. should not be concerned with that fact unless you think that would prevent you from being ... a fair and impartial juror. J.R. replied, It will not affect my decision. It was a question I had. Defendant asserts J.R.'s question revealed an attitude about race and the judicial system that was no different from that harbored by A.M. Not so. J.R.'s question revealed a curiosity about how the law defines a jury of one's peers, and, inferentially, a concern that an all-White jury might treat defendant differently than a diverse jury. The record reveals that A.M.'s attitude toward race and the judicial system was not just a curiosity or a concern, but amounted to a belief that the law and society were biased, and a lack of trust that the justice system would bring to light all the facts regarding a Black defendant. Comparing A.M. to J.R., therefore, does not show that the prosecutor challenged a Black juror who possessed the same characteristics as did a non-Black juror he did not challenge.