Opinion ID: 614681
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Juror Celedon

Text: Celedon, like Garcia, expressed doubt about being able to vote for the death penalty. To the question “[I]f after you have heard everything you feel the death penalty is the proper penalty, could you vote that way?” Celedon responded “I don’t know.” Moreover, as noted by the district court, Celedon seemed “bitter” about her presence on the venire, stating she had her mind on her work with her special education students. Doubt as to the use of the death penalty alone is sufficient to support a peremptory challenge; an attitude resentful of jury service also supports a peremptory challenge. Defense counsel could reasonably have believed that a Wheeler motion would fail.15 15 Celedon gave equivocal answers as to whether she could vote for the death penalty, similar to the answers given by Colaustro—who was not stricken by the prosecutor. Carrera performs no comparative analysis as to Celedon. Moreover, Celedon’s answers during voir dire made it clear she did not want to serve on Carrera’s jury. This is a significant distinction which could cause the prosecutor to challenge Celedon over Colaustro. CARRERA v. AYERS 18723