Opinion ID: 1189145
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Catalina Martinez

Text: Faller said he excused Martinez because he felt he did not have any strong opinions on anything and gave the impression that he would simply go along with the other jurors rather than form his own opinion and because Martinez went drinking with friends who steal. The majority apparently agrees with the Court of Appeal that the reasons given for his exclusion are suspect ( ante, p. 692), but does not explain why. [2] The reasons are legitimate. Martinez admitted that he had friends who steal. He said he went drinking with them. The special circumstance charged in defendants' murder trial was felony murder: it was alleged the murder was committed during the commission or attempted commission of a robbery. Martinez did not know whether his friendship with thieves would interfere with his ability to decide the case fairly. He conceded that it was tough to project what you are going to do. [3] In so doing, he was admitting a specific bias. Even though Martinez eventually responded to defense attorney questioning in such a way as to give the appearance that he could control his bias, the trial court could have determined that Faller was justified in doubting Martinez' neutrality. The fact that Martinez admitted he might be biased provides a valid ground for challenge. Faller's second reason for dismissing Martinez  that Martinez would simply go along with the other jurors rather than form his own opinion  is also a valid ground for challenge, and the trial court could legitimately have accepted this justification as well.