Opinion ID: 2551919
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ernestina R.

Text: During the ex parte hearing, to explain his challenge of Ernestina R., the prosecutor said: Miss [R.] indicated she had a husband that was shot to death, which leads me to believe what effect that would have on the robbery [ sic ]. He said he had mixed emotions because [s]he seemed to be sympathetic to the defense, but at the same time she had a close cousin that had been shot to death in a robbery, and the prosecutor didn't know how to reconcile with those two. On her juror questionnaire, in answer to whether she or any friend or family member had been a crime victim, Ernestina R. wrote: My nephew was shot when he was trying to help some people that had been robbed. During general voir dire, she explained that the incident had occurred about two and one-half years earlier in East Los Angeles, where her nephew was living. The nephew was 28 years old, married, with young children. Some men committed a robbery in an apartment building, and her nephew saw them and chased them. They shot him, and he died on the spot. Ernestina R. did not know whether the culprits were apprehended, because she did not often see or visit the nephew's family. No one else close to her had ever been a victim of a violent crime. Thus, the person who had been shot was not, as the prosecutor had said, Ernestina R.'s husband or close cousin, but instead a nephew with whom she said she had not been particularly close. The prosecutor never explained how this experience would make her an unfavorable juror for the prosecutor, nor did the prosecutor explain the conclusory assertion that she seemed to be sympathetic to the defense. Respondent has not called our attention to anything in the record of voir dire that supports that assertion.