Opinion ID: 1188941
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Prospective Juror Alice Maureen Shaw

Text: (8) In stating his reasons for excusing Ms. Shaw, the prosecutor noted from Shaw's body language and way of expressing herself it seemed there's a great deal of hostility within her. She seems mad or hostile about something. The prosecutor conceded that the hostility might not be directed at him, but that he thought it would be very chancy to put her on the jury. The prosecutor noted that Shaw said that she didn't think justice was done on the murder of the father of her child. Martin could not ascertain whether that experience would favor the defense or prosecution. The more he questioned her, the more he got the feeling that there was a pot boiling within her. Shaw had also witnessed her fiance being shot and seriously injured. Martin was uncertain what effect this shooting had on her. In Shaw's questionnaire, she described the defendant as a young man [who came] from an outstanding family. And when I asked her whether she knew the defendant, she then repeated that. On voir dire, Shaw ultimately stated that she did not know defendant. The prosecutor also expressed concern that Shaw had trained with the Department of Social Services, because he at one time had been the Director of Welfare for the State of California. During the hottest period of the welfare events, he had a number of suits filed against him personally that were reported in the media. The prosecutor did not ask Shaw about this subject because he did not wish to announce that that had been his job. After hearing argument by defense counsel, the court stated that it listened carefully to [the prosecutor's] explanation of why he made the challenge, found the reasons to be adequate, and denied the motion. We have repeatedly upheld peremptory challenges made on the basis of a prospective juror's negative experience with law enforcement. (See People v. Walker (1988) 47 Cal.3d 605, 625-626 [253 Cal. Rptr. 863, 765 P.2d 70]; People v. Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at pp. 275, 277, fn. 18.) In addition, peremptory challenges are properly made in response to `bare looks and gestures' by a prospective juror that may alienate one side. ( People v. Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 276.) The trial court acted within its discretion in finding the prosecutor's reasons race-neutral as to this juror.