Court Opinion

ID: 9689875
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:49:09.262982+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:50:39.979972
License: Public Domain

ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.
¶ 132. (concurring).
The circuit court is particularly well-positioned to make a determination of objective bias, and it has special competence in this area. It is intimately familiar with the voir dire proceeding, and is best situated to reflect upon the prospective juror's sub*754jective state of mind which is relevant as well to the determination of objective bias.
¶ 135. The preliminary question that the court must answer in this case is whether the circuit court erred in failing to strike D.F. for cause. The majority answers this question by stating that "[t]he totality of circumstances demonstrates that a reasonable person in D.F.'s position could not have remained fair and impartial." Majority op. at ¶ 41. While the juror's potential for fairness and impartiality must be measured against that of a reasonable person, the majority fails to engage in the inquiry that is ultimately controlling.
State v. Faucher, 227 Wis. 2d 700, 720, 596 N.W.2d 770 (1999).
¶ 133. I write separately because the majority opinion erases the deference that a reviewing court owes to a circuit court's objective bias determination expressed in the above quote. Like the court of appeals, I believe that the circuit court engaged in a thoughtful inquiry and reached a reasonable conclusion in determining that D.F. was not objectively biased.
¶ 134. Applying the correct standard and giving the circuit court's determination the weight it properly deserves, I conclude that a reasonable circuit court judge could conclude that D.F. was not objectively biased. Because I conclude that there was no error in failing to strike D.F. for cause, I need not reach the question of the Ramos remedy. However, because the majority has seen fit to overrule recent precedent without sufficient justification, I address this aspect of the majority opinion as well.
J — I
*755¶ 136. When reviewing a circuit court's objective bias determination, precedent requires that we ask whether the circuit court's conclusion is one that no reasonable judge could reach. In State v. Faucher, 227 Wis. 2d at 718-21, after explaining that the objective bias of a juror is to be determined under a reasonable person standard, we also concluded that weight must be afforded to the circuit court's objective bias determination. That weight derives from the circuit court's first-hand observation of the voir dire proceedings and its ability to reflect on the juror's subjective state of mind. Id. at 720. The weight attributed to the circuit court's determination tilts the scales in favor of affirmance to such a degree that we will not reverse the circuit court unless it reaches a conclusion that no reasonable judge could reach:
We therefore give weight to the court's conclusion that a prospective juror is or is not objectively biased. We will reverse its conclusion only if as a matter of law a reasonable judge could not have reached such a conclusion.
Id. at 721; State v. Kiernan, 227 Wis. 2d 736, 745, 596 N.W.2d 760 (1999).
¶ 137. The standard announced in Faucher, and reiterated in Kiernan, is quite different from the standard applied by today's majority. Under the correct standard, we do not simply ask whether a reasonable person in the juror's shoes could remain impartial. Rather, we must ask whether no reasonable circuit court asking that question could have concluded that the juror was not objectively biased. The question is not whether we would have struck the juror for cause.
¶ 138. Applying the correct standard to the instant case, and giving the circuit court's determina*756tion the weight properly afforded to it, I conclude that the circuit court's decision that D.F. was not objectively biased must stand. The majority provides a litany of "bad facts" to support its independent conclusion that D.F. was objectively biased. However, it minimizes many of the considerations relied upon by the circuit court in making its determination that D.F. was not biased — a determination that is entitled to deference.
¶ 139. In making its initial ruling declining to strike D.F. for cause, the circuit court explained that it relied on D.F.'s repeated assertions that she was impartial and could fairly evaluate the evidence of the defendant's guilt. After witnessing and participating in both the general voir dire of the jury panel and the individual voir dire of D.F., the circuit court explained:
[T]he fact of the matter is, [D.F.] has repeatedly assured you that her relationship with the deceased was minimal, that she can fairly and impartially try this case and that she can.. .be a good and fair juror.
D.F. assured the court that she had not drawn any conclusions regarding the defendant's guilt and had not had any discussions regarding who was responsible for the crime. Ultimately, D.F. explained that she was "very confident" in her ability to sit on the jury.
¶ 140. The goal of the jury selection process is to have a fair and impartial jury. In assessing the bias of jurors, an appellate court is left with only a written transcript to review, several months, often several years, after the actual jury selection. This reality limits our ability to fully assess the fairness and impartiality of an individual juror whom we have neither heard nor observed. The written transcript that we review is usually limited only to the spoken word. Yet a juror cannot *757speak fairness or talk impartiality. Fairness and impartiality are communicated.
¶ 141. The essence of the weight afforded to the circuit court's determination are the unknown factors that do not survive transcription: tone of voice, demeanor, body language, and other intangibles. While we are not privy to these elements, there is more to the exchange between counsel, the circuit court, and D.F. than the majority relates in its opinion. Ultimately, there is more underlying the circuit court’s determination that D.F. could be impartial and fair than the cold text of D.F.'s words.
¶ 142. These elements of the circuit court's decision were further explained by the circuit court when it denied Lindell's post-conviction motion seeking a new a trial based upon the failure to strike D.F. for cause. I believe that these excerpts reveal the deliberation of a reasonable circuit court concluding that it need not strike D.F. for cause:
As to the issue of [D.F.], let's not talk about the questions that were asked of [D.F.] in a vacuum here....
... [T]o take this whole questioning and understand it, you have to take it in the context in which it occurred....
. . . [L]et's talk about what I saw and what I didn't see....
... I can emphatically say that there was absolutely nothing that was blocking my view of any of the jurors, including counsel, the podium, where they stood, how they stood, etc. I saw at a very close distance, maybe twenty feet, each and every juror *758that was asked questions and the testimony that they gave. And I saw [D.F.j.
. . .[I]n 25 years that I've been practicing law, and in the 14 years I've been on the bench, I've seen a lot of jurors, I've seen a lot of jurors asked a lot of questions. I've seen jurors who it's pretty clear are not giving truthful answers.
It was clear from the very beginning that this was going to be an emotional case. We're talking about a very heinous crime and the death of a — death of a human being. This is not a disorderly conduct case, never was.
It was clear from the way all of the jurors reacted to the questioning that they took it as serious as everybody else did, [D.F.] included. I would not describe her as emotional. I would describe her as very honest, very sincere. I would describe her demeanor as somebody who is trying very, very hard to search her heart and her soul to answer as honestly and truthfullly as she could. Was she having some difficulty with that? Yes. Did she have to think about it? Yes. Were there pauses in her answers? Yes.
But in 14 years on the bench I don't think I've ever been more impressed with a juror who was trying to be as honest, sincere, and thorough as she possibly could. She was trying as hard as she possibly could to follow the instructions of the Court, to answer the questions as honestly and thoroughly as she could, and I think she did.
Now, what did she say? That she knew Miss Otto. She knew Mr. Harmacek but only through a business relationship. That she didn't have hardly any contact with Miss Otto. The only contact she had was with Mr. Harmacek when he delivered the beer to her parents' tavern. That she did not deal with him every day. That she never expressed an *759opinion, and that she had no opinions about the guilt or innocence of Mr. Lindell. That she never had any discussions with Miss Otto about the case. And when she was asked — oh, that her parents had never offered any opinion about the guilt or innocence of Mr. Lindell.
So what you have is someone who had never socialized with either Miss Otto or Mr. Harmacek, never expressed an opinion of the guilt or innocence of the defendant, never discussed the guilt or innocence of the defendant with anyone else, that the only relationship she had with the two people was a business relationship, and who repeatedly time after time indicated that she could fairly and impartially decide this case, and that was an assertion that I believe and believe to this day.
And when she said, quote, "I think I can," the inflection on her voice was very emphatic, and I believe it was absolutely unequivocal. . . .1 believe she was pretty emphatic that she could fairly and impartially try the case.
... I do not believe that this [juror] was evasive in any way. I think she was honest, fair in her answers. It's clear from her demeanor that she searched her soul and answered fairly and that she could fairly and impartially decide this case....
. . . Could a reasonable person under these circumstances be impartial? When you look at the cases that talk about juror impartiality, virtually all of them involve knowledge of a witness. They all involve somebody judging the credibility of a witness.
Miss Otto was a witness, although her testimony was extremely minor. If there was any feelings about Mr. Harmacek by [D.F.], unfortunately, Mr. Harmacek wasn’t a witness here. This juror was not going to be asked to discuss the credi*760bility of Mr. Harmacek, was he telling the truth or not? She was not going to be asked. . .anything about him at all.
If this had been a case where there was a burglary, and Mr. Harmacek was testifying as a witness, as a victim, perhaps she would have been excused. But that wasn't the case here.
Is it reasonable for a person who has a relative who knows a victim to be able to put that aside and judge a case fairly and impartially when the victim's credibility, the victim's actions, are not in any way, shape, or form being judged or examined? Can we say that just because [D.F.] had a business relationship with the victim that she would want to convict somebody, anybody, even an innocent man? Because that's what the claim of bias boils down to, that somehow she would try to convict an innocent man based only on, on her minimal relationship with the victim.
I believe a reasonable person under these circumstances could fairly judge, impartially judge the case. I do not believe there was objective bias. There is a big difference between answers to questions that would result in a juror being struck for cause and answers to questions that would cause somebody to exercise a peremptory strike. And based on her answers, perhaps counsel wished to strike her and obviously did. But I do not believe. . .the evidence here justified my striking that juror.
¶ 143. If this thoughtful explanation is not that of a reasonable circuit court, I do not know what is. Would I have struck D.F. for cause? Maybe. But that is not the controlling inquiry. The controlling inquiry is whether a circuit court, exercising reasonable judgment, could decline to strike D.F. The circuit court in this case not only rested its bias determination upon relevant facts and considerations, but it carefully *761explained its decision. I cannot conclude that the circuit court's determination was unreasonable.
¶ 144. Rather than give weight to the circuit court's determination, the majority eliminates the element of deference to be applied in an objective bias analysis. It parses D.F.'s words and draws its own conclusion that a reasonable juror in D.F.'s position could not remain fair and impartial.1 The majority's approach is a departure from precedent, and it is a departure that I ultimately find to be determinative of the outcome of this case.
¶ 145. I now briefly address the majority's decision to overrule State v. Ramos, 211 Wis. 2d 12, 564 N.W.2d 328 (1997). I happen to be among those who believe Ramos was wrongly decided. I joined the dissent in Ramos. See id. at 30 (Crooks, J., dissenting). I later continued to dissent in State v. Ferron, 219 Wis. 2d 481, 508, 579 N.W.2d 654 (1998) (Bradley, J., dissenting). However, despite my disagreement, because of the many and consistent affirmations of Ramos by this court I eventually had to acknowledge it as valid precedent. See, e.g., Kiernan, 227 Wis. 2d at 751-52 (Bradley, J., concurring).
*762¶ 146. Until today, Ramos remained valid precedent. Out of respect for the law and this court as an institution, I believe that the majority should continue to acknowledge it as precedent. Instead, with nothing changed but the bodies on this court, the majority overrules a case that, to my recollection, has been reaffirmed more than any other case in the last four years.
¶ 147. The court's decision in State v. Ramos was grounded in Wisconsin statutory law. See, e.g., 211 Wis. 2d at 19 ("Wisconsin Statutes do not suggest that a defendant should be required to use a peremptory challenge against a juror who should have been removed for cause"). It was, after all, only Ramos's "statutory rights" that were deemed violated. Id. at 24-25. While the majority points to the decision in United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 (2000), and other factors in its decision to overrule Ramos, it points to no statutory change or anything indicating a shift in legislative intent to justify its reversal.
¶ 148. Our job, in statutory interpretation is to discern the intent of the legislature when it enacted the statute. Now four years later, a new majority apparently has a new interpretation of what the legislature meant when it enacted the statute. There has been no change in the relevant statutes, no change in the constitution, and no change in the underlying principles. Nonetheless, the majority substitutes its will over its obligation to stare decisis.

 Not only does the majority fail to give due weight to the circuit court's legal conclusions, but it also ignores the circuit court's factual observations and replaces them with its own. The circuit court explained that it did not recall D.F. "crying or even looking like she was ready to cry." Yet, the majority, relying on tenuous inferences, disregards this and imputes to D.F. an emotional state not founded in the record. By doing so, the majority negates the very reason we give deference to the circuit court. The circuit court is in the best position to determine whether there were tears or even a hint of sadness on the part of D.F.