Opinion ID: 4103812
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Brenda M.

Text: Prospective Juror Brenda M. was a 30-year-old administrative analyst working in the psychology department at the University of California, Los Angeles. She felt the death penalty ―is right in a few cases—a very few.‖ For emphasis, she underlined the phrase ―a very few‖ four times. Her views stemmed from the fact that ―[i]f a verdict is wrong there is no way of righting the wrong.‖ She ―disagreed somewhat‖ with the statement that ―[a]nyone who intentionally kills another person should always get the death penalty,‖ explaining: ―There are circumstances that are not always known.‖ She ―agreed somewhat‖ with the statement that ―[a]nyone who intentionally kills more than one person should always get the death penalty,‖ explaining: ―There could be mental problems that need to be reviewed.‖ Brenda M. reiterated and expanded on her views during voir dire. She repeated that she felt there were ―very few cases that I would go for [the] death penalty,‖ and when asked whether there were any circumstances in which she would vote for death, she replied: ―I can‘t say for sure right now, but I would think that I would have a very hard time voting for it.‖ But when asked by codefendant Sanders‘s attorney whether she would set aside her personal opinions and follow the law if instructed to do so, she replied in the affirmative, later adding she had no doubt that she could do so. She affirmed she could follow the court‘s instruction to consider the two penalties (life in prison without parole or death) should defendant be convicted. 26 Questioned by the prosecutor, the prospective juror affirmed that the irreversibility of the death penalty was a concern to her, but she would have less concern if the accused admitted his guilt. If a defendant contested his guilt, however, she agreed she would not want to participate in the life-or-death decision. ―I‘m just saying that I—just in the small amount that I know about the case, I don‘t think I would go for the death penalty, even not knowing anything— any evidence or even knowing what they did.‖ ―I‘m trying to think of a case that I would say the death penalty is appropriate. I can’t offhand think of any.‖ (Italics added.) The trial court then attempted to clarify the juror‘s feelings, asking her whether, where a defendant contests her guilt, but the jury finds her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the juror would nonetheless refuse to ―impose the death penalty because [the accused] never admitted to full complicity in the crime?‖ She answered in the negative, explaining that a person‘s admission of guilt would simply make the life-or-death decision ―a little bit easier because of the point that there‘s no slight bit of percentage that they could be innocent.‖ Asked about different criminal scenarios, Brenda M. replied: ―I honestly don‘t want to make a decision on someone‘s life or death, and I‘m—it‘s hard to say, but almost in any case, I would probably go for life without possibility of parole just because I can‘t do that. Okay?‖ The trial court then asked her: ―Do you feel you could personally impose the death penalty yourself in the appropriate case?‖ She answered: ―I don’t think so. No.‖ (Italics added.) She later elaborated: ―You need to deliberate with the jury, and if somebody could give me a good enough reason why I would have to change my own personal feelings on the case, maybe, maybe I could go for the death penalty. [¶] But like I said, I very much doubt it.‖ (Italics added.) 27 The prosecutor then challenged Brenda M. for cause, arguing that she was impaired under Witt, supra, 469 U.S. 412. Defense counsel countered by highlighting the many times the juror said she could impose the death penalty and set aside her personal feelings of reluctance. The trial court excused Brenda M., explaining: ―My feeling is if there ever was a situation that is [Witt], this is it. The woman is tortured. Both sides attempting to drag her from one side of the line to the other. [¶] I feel there‘s substantial impairment.‖ The court continued: ―I really do feel that she is close to the line. I don‘t even think she got dragged over the line.‖ As the trial court observed, whether Brenda M.‘s written and oral responses demonstrated that her views about capital punishment would have ― ‗prevent[ed] or substantially impair[ed] the performance of [her] duties as a juror‘ ‖ (Witt, supra, 469 U.S. at p. 424), was a close call. Although she acknowledged that the life-or-death decision would be a difficult one for her, she was open about her views and at times seemed willing to fairly consider both sides. On the other hand, she admitted she could conceive of very few situations in which she would find the death penalty an appropriate punishment (signaling that she might be unable to fairly consider both sides of the question), and eventually stated she did not think she could vote for the death penalty (―I don‘t think so. No‖). Under the circumstances, given that the trial court was able to observe her demeanor (noting, ―[t]he woman is tortured‖), ―[t]o the extent [the juror] gave conflicting answers, the trial court reasonably resolved those conflicts in determining her true state of mind. Because the trial court‘s determination is fairly supported by the record, we defer to it.‖ (People v. Gonzales and Soliz, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 316.) 28