Opinion ID: 2639482
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Robbie T.

Text: We note the following excerpts from the voir dire of Robbie T. Juror: Right now, I could not honestly say yes to the death penalty. Peasley (Defense Counsel): Can you consider cases where you would give the death penalty? Juror: I'm really not sure. Peasley: Just as long as you could be open to both [death or life without parole], that's all it requires. Do you think you could do that? Juror: [If] I had to answer yes or no right now without any certainty, I couldn't do that. Peasley: [W]ould you be willing to consider both options? Juror: I could do that. Pacheco (Prosecutor): [Suppose] the judge says, hey, if you vote for the death penalty ... he's going to be executed the very next day. No appeals, no nothing .... Will that prevent you from voting for the death penalty? Juror: It might.... To be honest, yes. The trial judge gave a detailed explanation of the law, explaining the weighing process involved in the penalty decision. He then asked Robbie T. if she would set aside personal feelings, follow the instructions, and make a decision by weighing the facts; she replied that she would. Later the prosecutor remarked that he had planned to challenge Robbie T. for cause but the court had rehabilitated her. Even though Robbie T. was rehabilitated, her earlier answers could have given the prosecutor ample reason to believe that she would not be a favorable penalty phase juror. Defendant, however, argues here that the prosecution's outrageous question asking Robbie T. how she would respond if she learned a defendant would be executed the day after the verdict shows that the prosecution was not acting in good faith, and had a secret purpose to remove all Black jurors. We can agree with the defense that the refusal of a juror to vote for death if that sentence would be carried out without appeala patently illegal procedurewould not offer a prosecutor any grounds for concluding that the juror was inclined against the death penalty. But this interchange between Robbie T. and the prosecutor does not stand alone, and on the whole record the prosecutor could reasonably have concluded that she would be an unfavorable penalty phase juror. The trial court did not err in finding that defendant had failed to make out a prima facie case that Robbie T. was challenged because of her race.