Opinion ID: 3178556
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: It depends on the preponderance of the

Text: evidence, it depends on the special circumstances at the time, it depends on the evidence that’s presented. Right now, just saying that one person shot another individual and the other two people were in another area of the restaurant or whatever, it’s hard to say that those individuals would be eligible for it, but at that particular time, after listening to all the evidence, they may all three be eligible for it. It all depends on what actually was going on in the restaurant. THE COURT: You haven’t eliminated the death penalty with respect to the guys that didn’t kill anybody. A: Right. SIFUENTES V. BRAZELTON 19 The prosecutor attempted one final confirmation: Q. The special circumstance that you would have found as to those two defendants would have made them eligible for the death penalty or life in prison without the possibility of parole because they were major participants and they were involved in reckless indifference to human life during the course of that crime. Okay? A. Um-hum. Q. They don’t have to have an intent to kill anybody. In fact, as the factual scenario indicates, they didn’t kill anybody. A. Um-hum. Q. Knowing that, do you think it’s reasonable that—or is the death penalty still on the table in terms of a realistic option for two of these defendants who didn’t kill anybody, who actually did not fire the gun? A. Yes, because it was accessory to a crime. The defense asked no questions, and the court found Thompson qualified to serve. The judge later denied a challenge for cause. Sifuentes brought a Batson challenge after Thompson and three other black jurors (Gibson, Barnes and Skruggs) were 20 SIFUENTES V. BRAZELTON excused. The trial court held that Sifuentes had made a prima facie case, and thus the burden shifted to the prosecutor to justify the strikes of those four jurors. The prosecutor provided two reasons for striking Thompson: his views of the death penalty and his religious beliefs. The prosecutor explained his reasoning: [Thompson] was the one who was active in his Baptist church, involved in church programs weekly, and he expressed extreme reservations about the death penalty. There was a question asked: “Could you do something like that?” Page 7386: “I guess you could say it’s a gray-line answer there. I’ve always been taught to obey the law.” And then he says he’s equivocal. He was talking about his duty. He understands his duty. And I think he was confusing duty with how he felt about these penalties: “Well, because it’s the law, I can do my duty.” But that didn’t mean he could impose the death penalty. He also said at 7397 that he was a minister, and he said, “So basically I can’t hold judgment on anyone. But I do have to hold account to the laws of the land.” So he said because of his religious beliefs, he wasn’t in a position to make a judgment on anybody, and he repeated that several times. SIFUENTES V. BRAZELTON 21 THE COURT: How about the next one? MR. GOODFELLOW: At 7398, he also said, “I can’t say you’re a bad person.” And