Opinion ID: 2551919
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Rosalinda R.

Text: During the ex parte hearing, the prosecutor said he challenged Rosalinda R. because she had worked for L.A.P.D. for ten years, and the prosecutor did not know what effect that would have on her, and because she made a point of indicating to us her brother had been beaten by officers who had belonged to L.A.P.D., as a result of which the prosecutor felt uneasy with her. On the jury questionnaire, in answer to whether she or any friend or family member had been a crime victim, Rosalinda R. wrote: My brother was beaten by police officers. On general voir dire, she said she had worked as a clerk typist for L.A.P.D. (the Los Angeles Police Department) for 10 years, and as a result knew many police officers. She said this would have no effect, however, and she definitely could judge the testimony of a police officer the same as any other witness. She had not worked in the Hollywood division and did not recognize the names of any of the officers who would testify. She had worked in the records department. Regarding the incident with her brother, she said it had happened two years earlier, when she was no longer working for the police department, and the officers involved were sheriffs deputies, not police. She had no hard feelings about it, and she never got into it because she and her brother were not that close. She had enjoyed working for the police.