Opinion ID: 4273082
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jury Selection and Pretrial Claims

Text: Reed is African American. He contends the prosecutor violated his state and federal constitutional rights to equal protection and a jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community by peremptorily excusing five black prospective jurors at the guilt phase. (See Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79, 89 (Batson); People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258, 276-277 (Wheeler).) We find no error.
The trial court began voir dire on May 25, 1999. After exclusions for hardship, the jury venire consisted of 123 people, including 42 black jurors, 49 white jurors, 16 Hispanic jurors, 14 Asian jurors, one “Middle East[ern]” juror, and one juror whose race we are unable to determine. Once the parties excused certain jurors for cause or by stipulation, 82 prospective jurors remained. The first 18 jurors to enter the jury box included nine white jurors, six black jurors, two Hispanic jurors, and one Asian juror. Following a brief round of voir dire, the prosecution exercised peremptory strikes against Corrine T. (a white woman), Bert A. (a black man), Billie L. (a black woman), Betzaida C. (a Hispanic woman), and Janice C. (a black woman). During a second round of peremptory strikes, the prosecutor excused Bruno B. (a Hispanic man), Nickey W. (a black man), and Mary C. (a black woman). After the prosecutor struck Mary C., defense counsel raised a Batson/Wheeler objection. Defense counsel noted that the prosecution had used five of his eight strikes up to that point on black prospective jurors. Without hearing from the prosecution, the trial court overruled the objection, stating “there 9 has not been a showing of a strong likelihood” that the prosecutor’s challenges were racially motivated. Before the jury was sworn, the prosecutor struck five additional jurors, one of whom was a black woman. The prosecutor also exercised three peremptory strikes during the selection of alternate jurors, one of which removed a black woman from the panel. The resulting guilt phase jury initially consisted of three black jurors, five white jurors, one Hispanic juror, two Asian jurors, and one “Middle East[ern]” juror. During the trial, one black juror was excused for hardship and replaced by a Hispanic alternate.
Both the United States and California Constitutions prohibit discriminatory use of peremptory strikes. (Batson, supra, 476 U.S. at p. 89; Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at pp. 276-277; People v. Gutierrez (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1150, 1157-1159.) To assess whether such prohibited discrimination has occurred, our inquiry under Batson/Wheeler follows three distinct, familiar steps. First, the party objecting to the strike must establish a prima facie case by showing facts sufficient to support an inference of discriminatory purpose. (Johnson v. California (2005) 545 U.S. 162, 168 (Johnson).) Second, if the objector succeeds in establishing a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the proponent of the strike to offer a permissible, nonbiased justification for the strike.6 (Ibid.) Finally, if the proponent does offer a non-biased justification, the trial court must decide whether that justification is 6 In cases where the trial court has concluded no prima facie case has been established, it is the better practice to “offer prosecutors the opportunity to state their reasons so as to enable creation of an adequate record for an appellate court, should it disagree with the first-stage ruling, to determine whether any constitutional violation has been established.” (People v. Scott (2015) 61 Cal.4th 363, 388 (Scott).) 10 genuine or instead whether impermissible discrimination in fact motivated the strike. (Ibid.) The trial court denied Reed’s Batson/Wheeler motion at the first step of the inquiry, finding Reed had not established a prima facie case. But it did so at a time when California courts applied an unduly stringent standard for Batson claims at step one. (See People v. Carasi (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1263, 1293.) In Johnson, the United States Supreme Court rejected our previous standard — requiring that it be “ ‘more likely than not’ ” that purposeful discrimination occurred — as inconsistent with federal constitutional protections, and instead favored a standard turning on whether the opponent of the strike has “ ‘produc[ed] evidence sufficient to permit the trial judge to draw an inference’ ” of discrimination. (Carasi, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1293, quoting Johnson, 545 U.S. at p. 170.) As the People concede, the trial court here denied the motion using the “more likely than not” standard that Johnson disapproved. In these circumstances, we conduct our own independent review of the record and apply the Johnson standard to determine whether the record supports an inference that the prosecutor excused a juror on a discriminatory basis. (People v. Bonilla (2007) 41 Cal.4th 313, 342 (Bonilla).) Although we examine the entire record when conducting our review, certain types of evidence are especially relevant. These include whether a party has struck most or all of the members of the venire from an identified group, whether a party has used a disproportionate number of strikes against members of that group, whether the party has engaged those prospective jurors in only desultory voir dire, whether the defendant is a member of that group, and whether the victim is a member of the group to which a majority of remaining jurors belong. (Scott, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 384.) We may also consider nondiscriminatory reasons for the peremptory strike that “necessarily dispel any 11 inference of bias,” so long as those reasons are apparent from and clearly established in the record. (Ibid.) What Reed relies on primarily to advance his challenge is evidence of disproportionate strikes against black jurors. The prosecutor used five of his first eight peremptory strikes (roughly 63 percent) on black jurors, even though such jurors constituted only 34 percent of the venire. Considered in the context of the entire jury selection process, however, these initial strikes do not support an inference of discriminatory intent. (See People v. Garcia (2011) 52 Cal.4th 706, 748 [considering ratio of stricken challenged jurors in context of overall strikes, including those made after Batson/Wheeler motion].) The prosecutor’s next four strikes all targeted non-black jurors, and taken together, his strikes did not target black jurors in a particularly disproportionate manner. The prosecutor exercised 13 strikes during the selection of regular jurors, and three more while selecting alternates. Six of the prosecutor’s thirteen regular juror strikes (46 percent) — and seven of sixteen overall (44 percent) — targeted black jurors. Although these figures exceed the 34 percent ratio of black jurors in the venire, they do so only barely. Viewed in its overall context, the pattern of strikes by itself does not suggest the inference of discrimination that might otherwise be drawn from the prosecutor’s initial strikes. What is more, the prosecutor first signaled his acceptance of a jury at a time when it contained two black jurors, and three black jurors ultimately sat on the jury. (See People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 906 [noting that prosecutor’s repeated passing of “an African-American woman who ultimately served as a juror in the guilt phase” helped dispel any inference of discriminatory motive].) It is true that the prosecutor used his last strike on a black woman before the trial court empaneled the jury. But another black juror replaced her, and the prosecutor immediately accepted the panel. While acceptance of one or more black jurors by 12 the prosecution does not necessarily settle all questions about how the prosecution used its peremptory challenges, these facts nonetheless help lessen the strength of any inference of discrimination that the pattern of the prosecutor’s strikes might otherwise imply. (See People v. Hartsch (2010) 49 Cal.4th 472, 487 [“The prosecutor’s acceptance of a panel including these African-American prospective jurors, while not conclusive, was ‘an indication of the prosecutor’s good faith in exercising his peremptories . . . .’ ”].) Most notably, the prosecutor’s decision to strike one black juror while accepting another who replaced her suggests that nonrace related differences between the jurors, rather than race, explain the prosecutor’s actions. (See ibid.) Reed also argues that the prosecutor struck the challenged jurors without asking them voir dire questions. Yet the prosecutor did in fact engage Billie L. in a lengthy colloquy regarding her views on the death penalty. More important, the attorneys received the jurors’ questionnaires prior to commencement of voir dire. What we have held is that under these circumstances, an attorney’s failure to engage jurors in voir dire is less significant than when the attorneys know nothing about the jurors prior to striking them. (See People v. Taylor (2010) 48 Cal.4th 574, 615 (Taylor).) Accordingly, we accord no great weight to the prosecutor’s limited voir dire. We find further evidence dispelling any inference of bias in the struck jurors’ questionnaires and answers during voir dire. (See People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 411, 435-439 (Sanchez) [considering nondiscriminatory reasons for peremptory challenges that are apparent from and “clearly established” in the record].) While we are not relying here solely on hypothesized prosecutor reasons to strike a juror in assessing a Batson/Wheeler motion, a record devoid of any support for race-neutral reasons justifying prosecutor strikes would raise further concerns. In this case, however, the record is not devoid of support for race13 neutral reasons for excusing each of the jurors in question. Bert A. wrote that his brother had a negative experience with law enforcement when he was convicted of robbery in 1984. We have previously recognized a relative’s negative experiences with law enforcement as a race-neutral hypothetical reason for a strike that dispels any inference of discriminatory intent. (See People v. Harris (2013) 57 Cal.4th 804, 836 (Harris).) Moreover, Bert A. reported that he had previously served on a criminal jury that hung. We have also recognized such a disclosure as the sort that sufficiently dispels any inference of discrimination. (See People v. Farnam (2002) 28 Cal.4th 107, 138 (Farnam).) Similarly, both Janice C. and Mary C. reported that their spouses had prior contact with law enforcement. Janice C. wrote that her spouse had been convicted of a drug offense in 1977, while Mary C. stated that her husband had been arrested or charged with a crime 10 years prior to Reed’s trial. (See People v. Booker (2011) 51 Cal.4th 141, 167 [“A negative experience with the criminal justice system is a valid neutral reason for a peremptory challenge”]; Harris, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 836.) Billie L. stated in her questionnaire that she was “[s]trongly against” the death penalty and, during voir dire, she repeated this view, commenting that “I believe that maybe we should just not have a death penalty.” These statements were later subject to a measure of equivocation, given her statement that “Each case is unique. The death penalty must be considered very carefully.” Even so, the prosecutor could have had a reasonable preference to strike Billie L. because of the risk –– in light of her earlier statements –– that she would in fact refuse to impose the death penalty. We have previously held that the declaration of opposition to the death penalty, even when combined with some subsequent equivocation, reasonably dispels any inference of discrimination. (See Scott, 14 supra, 61 Cal.4th at pp. 384-385; People v. Panah (2005) 35 Cal.4th 395, 440441.) Finally, Nickey W. offered answers on his questionnaire that were sufficiently conflicting to raise the possibility for reasonable concern by the prosecutor. In response to a question about whether he understood and agreed that the fact defendant had been charged with certain crimes was not evidence of his guilt, Nickey W. wrote “no,” but then added “you are innocent until proven [guilty].” Later, Nickey W. rejected the proposition that a defendant is not required to prove that he is innocent, and elaborated that “the defendant has to prove his [innocence].” The concerns raised by Nickey W.’s response to critical aspects of the questionnaire provide a strong reason for the prosecutor to excuse him. (See People v. Sattiewhite (2014) 59 Cal.4th 446, 470.) Reed also contends that a comparison between the jurors struck by the prosecution and the non-black jurors that ultimately served on the jury proves these rationales could not have motivated the prosecutor’s strikes. In particular, Reed suggests that, if the rationale for the prosecutor’s strikes against black jurors Bert A., Janice C., and Mary C. was grounded in their relatives’ arrests or criminal convictions, the prosecutor should have also challenged non-black jurors with relatives who had comparable experience with the criminal justice system. We have often declined to undertake comparative juror analysis at step one of the Batson/Wheeler framework. (See, e.g., Sanchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th 411 at p. 439; Taylor, supra, 48 Cal.4th at pp. 616-617; Bonilla, supra, 41 Cal.4th 313 at p. 350.) Nonetheless, such analysis can be helpful in certain circumstances to assess whether a defendant established a prima facie case of bias. (See Scott, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 390; Harris, supra, 57 Cal.4th at 874-876 (conc. opn. of Liu, J.).) Reed’s comparisons in this case, however, are unavailing. 15 It is true that Bert A., Janice C., and Mary C. have family members who were arrested or convicted of crimes. Nonetheless, the prosecution had additional, independent reasons for striking these potential jurors aside from the fact that their relatives had a criminal history. For one, Bert A. indicated that he previously served on a criminal jury involving a murder charge that resulted in a hung jury. (See Farnam, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 138 [concluding that sitting on a hung jury “constitutes a legitimate concern for the prosecution”].) Mary C.’s questionnaire answers, meanwhile, were frequently incomplete and, in particular, she failed to answer critical questions related to her husband’s criminal history. There is a further distinction in whether the relevant family members had been convicted of their respective crimes. The relatives of Bert A. and Janice C. had indeed been convicted. Bert A.’s brother was convicted and served time for burglary, and Janice C.’s husband was convicted on drug charges. Although Reed compares Bert A. and Janice C. with jurors whose family members had been arrested, no evidence suggests these family members were convicted or served time in prison. The prosecutor could have readily concluded that a criminal conviction, or time spent in prison, was more significant than simply having a family member arrested. (See People v. Lancaster (2007) 41 Cal.4th 50, 78 [“[N]o inference of group bias appears from the prosecutor’s decision to challenge a prospective juror whose family members were serving or had served prison terms”].) Accordingly, Reed fails to demonstrate that the totality of relevant facts give rise to an inference of discriminatory intent for the prosecutor’s strikes. (See also People v. Gray (2005) 37 Cal.4th 168, 189 [a prosecutor may “excuse a prospective juror for a variety of reasons, finding no single characteristic dispositive”].) 16
On the first day of trial, Reed motioned to continue proceedings so he could secure the presence of Joe Galindo as a defense witness. The trial court denied the motion. Reed contends that the trial court’s decision was an abuse of discretion, and that it violated his federal constitutional rights under the Sixth Amendment and his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. We reject the claim. During the first morning of trial, Reed’s attorney made an oral motion for a continuance to secure the presence of Joe Galindo. Reed’s attorney stated only that Galindo was a member of the National Guard who had been deployed, “perhaps to Yugoslavia.” The prosecutor then objected to the continuance. He explained to the trial court that Galindo did not witness the shooting of Vasquez and Mendez but did see someone running away from the location of the shooting shortly after it occurred. He further explained that Galindo could not identify the fleeing individual but could offer a description of him that is “somewhat consistent, somewhat inconsistent with the way the defendant looks.” Reed’s attorney then stated that the prosecutor’s description of Galindo’s anticipated testimony was “fair and accurate.” The trial court denied the motion without hearing further argument. After the penalty phase retrial — at which Galindo testified — Reed moved for a new trial based on the earlier denial of his motion for a continuance. The trial court denied the motion. A criminal trial may be continued only upon a showing of good cause. Trial courts have wide discretion to determine whether such cause exists. (§ 1050, subd. (e); People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 450.) In making that determination, courts consider whether the moving party has acted diligently, the anticipated benefits of the continuance, the burden that the continuance would impose on witnesses, jurors, and the court, and whether a continuance will 17 accomplish or hinder substantial justice. (Doolin, at p. 450.) On appeal, we review all circumstances relevant to the motion to determine whether the trial court’s decision was so arbitrary as to deprive the movant of due process. (Ibid.) We find no abuse of discretion here. Reed’s attorney requested a continuance of unknown duration, and suggested to the trial court that Galindo might not be available to testify for quite some time.7 Indeed the trial court was understandably concerned that granting a continuance would delay the trial indefinitely. Under these circumstances, the trial court did not act arbitrarily in believing that any continuance would impose a significant burden on everyone involved in the trial, not least the prospective jurors who had filled out lengthy juror questionnaires and arrived at court that day for the beginning of juror selection. Nor did Reed’s attorney suggest Galindo’s testimony was particularly beneficial to the defense. In fact, defense counsel expressly agreed with the prosecutor’s contention that the anticipated testimony would only be partially exculpatory, in that Galindo’s description of the individual would be “somewhat consistent, somewhat inconsistent” with Reed. Reed argues that Galindo’s testimony at the penalty phase retrial was more helpful to the defense than suggested during the request for a continuance. While we consider all circumstances relevant to a ruling on a motion for a continuance, we focus particular attention on the reasons actually given for the request. (See People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1118 [“ ‘There are no mechanical tests for deciding when a denial of a continuance is so arbitrary as to violate due process. 7 We also note that defense counsel did not mention his efforts to secure witness Galindo’s attendance until after the motion for a new trial. Although it appears that counsel did go to some lengths in attempting to serve the witness, he did not relay this information at the time the continuance was sought. 18 The answer must be found in the circumstances present in every case, particularly in the reasons presented to the trial judge at the time the request is denied.’ ”], quoting Ungar v. Sarafite (1964) 376 U.S. 575, 589, italics added.) And the reasons presented to the trial judge were not particularly compelling. Reed also cites numerous cases where reviewing courts have found an abuse of discretion to have occurred after a trial court denied a continuance to secure a witness. Yet none of those cases present the circumstances here: a request for a continuance that would not only have been of indefinite duration but also of limited apparent utility. (See Jennings v. Superior Court (1967) 66 Cal.2d 867, 871 [request for four day continuance]; People v. Buckey (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 740, 744 [request for continuance until “next court day” for “highly necessary” testimony]; Bennett v. Scroggy (1986) 793 F.2d 772, 775 [witness “probably could have been located overnight”]; U.S. v. Flynt (1984) 756 F.2d 1352, 1360 [continuance “would not have resulted in any cognizable inconvenience to the court or the government”]; Hicks v. Wainwright (1981) 633 F.2d 1146, 1149-1150 [witness available to give “critical” testimony “that evening or at any time thereafter”]; U.S. v. Powell (1978) 587 F.2d 443, 446 [request for four day continuance]; Johnson v. Johnson (1974) 375 F. Supp. 872, 876 [witnesses could have appeared “the next day”].) So we find no abuse of discretion.8 8 Although Reed’s briefing is unclear, he appears to challenge the trial court’s denial of his motion for a new trial based on the denial of the motion for a continuance. Because we hold that the denial of Reed’s motion for a continuance did not deny him a fair trial, we also reject any challenge to the trial court’s ruling on the motion for a new trial. Our rejection of the merits of Reed’s argument regarding the continuance also suffices to reject any constitutional “ ‘gloss’ ” on that claim. (See People v. Wallace (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1032, 1050 fn. 4.) 19