Court Opinion

ID: 9751557
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 16:35:49.897852+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:51.165826
License: Public Domain

*1056BLEASE, Acting P. J., Concurring.
I concur in the judgment and in parts II and III of the opinion. As to part I, I concur in the result on the view that it is compelled by the California Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Montiel (1993) 5 Cal.4th 877 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 705, 855 P.2d 1277] and is supported by the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Purkett v. Elem (1995) _ U.S. _ [131 L.Ed.2d 834, 115 S.Ct. 1769].
The defendant challenges the striking of Black jurors on the ground the reasons offered by the prosecutor for their exclusion were pretextual in that the same reasons could have been applied to strike other jurors who were not challenged. The use of such comparative data is ruled out by People v. Montiel, supra, That rule has not been overturned by Purkett v. Elem, supra,
But if comparative data may not be used to show that the reasons offered for striking Black jurors are pretextual, such data also may not be used to show they were not pretextual, as the majority suggests. What may be shown at this (third) stage of review is the “persuasiveness of the justification.” (Purkett v. Elem, supra, ___U.S. at p. __ [131 L.Ed.2d at p. 839].) As the United States Supreme Court has noted, “implausible or fantastic justifications may (and probably will) be found to be pretexts for purposeful discrimination.” (Ibid.) The reasons for striking Black jurors shown on the record in this case pass that test.
Appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied March 13, 1996. Mosk, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.