Court Opinion

ID: 9519340
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:14:23.987728+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:18.215184
License: Public Domain

LIU, J., Concurring.
Justice Werdegar’s concurring opinion raises important concerns, and I agree that courts must be vigilant not to adopt remedial rules that erode the substance of the constitutional right to a jury selected free of improper discrimination. Further, I agree with Justice Werdegar that quashing the venire, though strong medicine, properly remains the default remedy because of the incentive it gives the parties to affirmatively examine and avoid the possible influence of conscious or unconscious bias. But I join today’s opinion because I believe indications short of an express waiver can demonstrate a party’s consent to relinquish the right to the default remedy. We would confront a quite different case if a trial court were to order the alternative remedy of reseating an improperly struck juror over the defendant’s objection or without giving the defendant a meaningful opportunity to object.