Opinion ID: 2571564
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Use of peremptories against African-Americans

Text: There were two African-Americans, Rosalind H. and David L., in the 78person juror pool; the prosecution struck them both. Nichols made a Batson/Wheeler motion objecting to the removal of African-Americans, which Bonilla joined. The trial court denied the motion, finding no systematic exclusion of Blacks. We agree with the trial court that Bonilla made no prima facie showing that the two prospective African-American jurors were challenged because of their race. Bonilla relies principally on the fact that all African-Americansโtwo of twoโwere `struck from the juror pool. It is true the prosecution used peremptories to challenge both African-Americans in the pool, but the small absolute size of this sample makes drawing an inference of discrimination from this fact alone impossible. `[E]ven the exclusion of a single prospective juror may be the product of an improper group bias. As a practical matter, however, the challenge of one or two jurors can rarely suggest a pattern of impermissible exclusion.' ( People v. Bell, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 598, 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 453, 151 P.3d 292, quoting People v. Harvey (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 90, 111, 208 Cal.Rptr. 910; see also People v. Turner (1994) 8 Cal.4th 137, 167-168, 32 Cal. Rptr.2d 762, 878 P.2d 521.) [12] Bonilla does not contend the prosecution's questioning of Rosalind H. and David L. was cursory or materially different from the questioning of non-African-American jurors. Nor is Bonilla African-American. Moreover, the information elicited in voir dire showed race-neutral reasons for excusing both prospective jurors. Defense counsel freely conceded, With respect to Miss [H.] and Mr. [L.], Miss [H.] represents a close case, given the fact her husband suffered a previous [felony] conviction and her father had been convicted of killing his brother. (See People v. Garceau (1993) 6 Cal.4th 140, 172, 24 Cal. Rptr.2d 664, 862 P.2d 664 [recognizing peremptory may be used to excuse juror whose relatives have had negative criminal justice system experiences].) The prosecutor relied on this, as well as the fact Rosalind H. felt the death penalty was randomly imposed. As for David L., the prosecutor cited questionnaire and voir dire answers that suggested hesitation about the death penalty, as well as his perception that David L. failed to respond when the court asked the prospective jurors whether they could follow the law. The trial court correctly concluded no prima facie case of group bias against African-Americans had been established. [13]