Opinion ID: 2575291
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Excusal of Prospective Juror L.R.

Text: On his juror questionnaire, Prospective Juror L.R. wrote Yes, when asked whether he thought defendant was guilty of the charges. He also stated that he opposed the death penalty. On voir dire, the trial court asked L.R. whether he would be able to set aside your previous impressions and opinions and judge this matter solely on the evidence produced in this courtroom and on the arguments of the attorneys and on the body of law that the Court will instruct you? L.R. found the question very difficult to answer, and stated that I really don't know how I would behave as a juror since I have never been a juror. The court explained that he was not being asked to forget his opinions and impressions; rather, he would be called upon to set them aside and decide the case based upon what he heard in the courtroom. L.R. said he did not know whether he could do so. The prosecutor challenged L.R. for cause under People v. Bittaker (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1046, 1090 [259 Cal.Rptr. 630, 774 P.2d 659] ( Bittaker ), because he has not affirmatively said that he can set aside his opinions and deal only with the facts in the case as they are presented in the Court. Defense counsel asserted the prosecutor lacked standing to challenge a prospective juror for cause on this basis. In response to further questioning by the court, L.R. iterated that he did not know whether he could base his decision solely on the evidence presented in court, and stated he did not know whether he would be a fair and impartial juror. The trial court sustained the prosecutor's challenge, finding that this juror cannot be fair and impartial. This juror is equivocating to the point where I have absolutely no idea what his state of mind is. He has indicated to me that he cannot base his decision in this case solely on the evidence produced in this courtroom, and that he has been so impressed and influenced by the pretrial publicity that he cannot be fair and impartial. I'm making that finding. Defense counsel again opposed the challenge for the reasons ... stated before, and also argued that the attitudes expressed by [L.R.] ... are not necessarily indicative of his state of mind, but more indicative of a desire not to serve. I don't think that creates a situation where the Court can legitimately make a finding that he cannot be a fair and impartial juror. The court stated, I don't think he can be fair and impartial in this case. I have a duty to get fair and impartial jurors; he's not one of them.