Opinion ID: 2575291
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Excusal of Prospective Juror D.R.

Text: On her juror questionnaire, in response to the question of whether defendant was guilty of the charges, Prospective Juror D.R. wrote, Yeahprobably he did itbut why, what drove him to it, will he or could he be driven to it again? She also stated she could not handle knowing I was responsible for sending someone to the chair, or responsibility for the death penalty. She disclosed that her fiancé was in prison for murder, and expressed the opinion that her fiancé would not be there if he weren't poor, undereducated and Black. On voir dire, D.R. stated she did not know whether she would follow the law as instructed by the court. She stated that her recollection of the details of the case was hazy, but if something presented in court conflicted with something she recalled from media reports, she would question what had been presented in court. Defense counsel asked, If the court were to tell you that it's your responsibility as a juror to decide this case solely on the evidence presented here in court would you follow that instruction? D.R. answered, No. The prosecutor challenged D.R. under Bittaker, supra, 48 Cal.3d 1046. Defense counsel asserted that the prosecutor did not have standing to make this challenge, and also argued that D.R.'s hazy recollections would not in any way impinge on her ability to listen to the evidence. The prosecutor note[d] once again, that a fair trial is the providence of the court and everyone who knows what her opinions are like, they could impinge on the prosecution in terms of what magnificent little details she'd dredge up during the course of the trial. The trial court sustained the challenge. This juror has come in, expressed that attitude that defendant is guilty.... She has said that she ... doesn't believe people tell the truth in court. She has said she cannot follow the court's instructions, follow the evidence in court. She said she would take whatever she remembers over what she sees in court. She has said she doesn't believe in the court system. She thinks that too many people make deals, and she trusts her perceptions far more than what is told to her.... It's abundantly clear to me that she is just totally unqualified to be a juror. I couldn't for the life of me understand why the defense persists in thinking that she above all the other people we've ever interviewed in this case, is going to be able to set aside whatever miniscule specific facts that she might have pertaining to this case and be a fair and impartial juror. She just flat out can't be. I think it would be a travesty of justice to let her remain on this case.