Opinion ID: 2517841
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Analysis of Decision Denying Two Defense Challenges

Text: Prospective Juror J.C. was a former peace officer and district attorney investigator who had retired 10 years before trial. Voir dire began with his assurances that he could consider and impose either life imprisonment or a death sentence depending upon the evidence, including defendant's character and background. Speaking candidly, J.C. acknowledged that he might lean toward the prosecution on guilt because he knew, from past experience, that the district attorney's office is not going to file a case unless they feel [there] is sufficient evidence to get a conviction. J.C. was familiar with pretrial motions to dismiss complaints and suppress evidence. He assumed the defense might try to disqualify him. Nevertheless, J.C. insisted that his law enforcement background would not impair his ability to be a fair and impartial juror. He said that he would make his own decision on guilt and penalty based on the evidence and instructions, that he would not automatically vote in favor of the prosecution, that law enforcement officers sometimes make mistakes, that defendant was presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. J.C. made clear that he would want [defendant] to have a fair trial. Prospective Juror K.E. worked as a customs agent for the federal government in the internal affairs division. Previously, she had worked with both the sheriffs office and university police. She stated on voir dire that her job enhanced, rather than detracted from, her fairness as a juror. K.E. noted that she had encountered bad police officers, some of whom had lied to her. She also was trained to assess the credibility of all witnesses. Though K.E. favored the death penalty, she knew it was not appropriate in every case depending on the facts. She also believed that life imprisonment was horrible, even though it was less serious than death. Later, in response to defense questioning, K.E. reiterated that she would not feel an affinity toward police witnesses, or a suspicion towards the defense team, if she served on the jury. Based on these exchanges, and the deference we accord to credibility determinations on voir dire, the trial court could reasonably conclude that neither prospective juror was biased in favor of the prosecution or a death sentence despite their employment backgrounds. Hence, the court did not err in denying defendant's challenges for cause. (See, e.g., Ledesma, supra, 39 Cal.4th 641, 675-676, 47 Cal. Rptr.3d 326, 140 P.3d 657 [upholding retention of reserve deputy sheriff who said he could be fair on death penalty, even though friends in law enforcement had been murdered]; People v. Staten (2000) 24 Cal.4th 434, 453-454, 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 213, 11 P.3d 968 [same, as to female prospective juror whose close relatives were police officers].)