Court Opinion

ID: 9795794
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:39:03.678505+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:37:46.564842
License: Public Domain

MORENO, J., Dissenting.
“[R]acial discrimination in the selection of jurors ‘casts doubt on the integrity of the judicial process,’ [citation] and places the fairness of a criminal proceeding in doubt. [][] The jury acts as a vital check against the wrongful exercise of power by the State and its prosecutors. [Citation.] The intrusion of racial discrimination into the jury selection process damages both the fact and the perception of this guarantee. ‘Jury selection is the primary means by which a court may enforce a defendant’s right to be tried by a jury free from ethnic, racial, or political prejudice ....’” (Powers v. Ohio (1991) 499 U.S. 400, 411 [113 L.Ed.2d 411, 111 S.Ct. 1364].) “The diverse and representative character of the jury must be maintained . . . .” (J.E.B. v. Alabama (1994) 511 U.S. 127, 134 [128 L.Ed.2d 89, 114 S.Ct. 1419].) Because today’s majority opinion shelters a prosecutor’s pretextual peremptory challenge of a Hispanic juror from further inquiry by the trial court, I dissent.
*936Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79 [90 L.Ed.2d 69, 106 S.Ct. 1712] (Batson) requires a three-step process when a party claims an opponent has discriminatorily exercised a peremptory challenge against a prospective juror on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or other cognizable group bias; “[Ojnce the opponent of a peremptory challenge has made out a prima facie case of racial discrimination (step one), the burden of production shifts to the proponent of the strike to come forward with a race-neutral explanation (step two). If a race-neutral explanation is tendered, the trial court must then decide (step three) whether the opponent of the strike has proved purposeful racial discrimination.” (Purkett v. Elem (1995) 514 U.S. 765, 767 [131 L.Ed.2d 834, 115 S.Ct. 1769].)
In People v. Silva (2001) 25 Cal.4th 345, 384 [106 Cal.Rptr.2d 93, 21 P.3d 769] (Silva), our concern was with step three of this process, “whether the record as a whole shows purposeful discrimination.” We then held that “[w]hen the prosecutor’s stated reasons are both inherently plausible and supported by the record, the trial court need not question the prosecutor or make detailed findings. But when the prosecutor’s stated reasons are either unsupported by the record [or] inherently implausible . . . more is required of the trial court than a global finding that the reasons appear sufficient.” (Id. at p. 386, italics added.) Under such circumstances, the trial court has two obligations: “to make ‘a sincere and reasoned attempt to evaluate the prosecutor’s explanation’ (People v. Hall (1983) 35 Cal.3d 161, 167-168 [197 Cal.Rptr. 71, 672 P.2d 854]) and to clearly express its findings. (People v. Fuentes (1991) 54 Cal.3d 707, 716, fn. 5 [286 Cal.Rptr. 792, 818 P.2d 75].)” (Id. at p. 385.)
PROCEEDINGS BELOW
At the step two hearing, the prosecutor asserted that he challenged Hispanic Prospective Juror Elizabeth G. because she was a “customer service representative” and “[i]n terms of that, we felt that she did not have enough educational experience.” He added, “It seemed she was not paying attention to the proceedings and the People felt that she was not involved in the process.” The trial court did not afford the defense an opportunity to respond to this proffer and instead issued a global finding: “I accept those reasons as being not based upon race or ethnicity. ... So the motion is denied.”
Counsel for Julian Reynoso then asked if he could “make a couple [of] points for the record” and the court consented.1 The following colloquy took place:
*937“[Counsel for Julian]: And a couple [of] points for the record is that [the prosecutor] passed on [Elizabeth G.] about seven or eight times. Then when I think he sensed that the defense was getting ready to pass, then it excused [Elizabeth G.]. There’s nothing about what [Elizabeth G.] said in terms of her background that would make her be sympathetic to the defendants in this case, when she said she was a customer service rep. Her husband is a construction supervisor. []Q She’s got friends in the Porterville [Police Department], her brother or brother-in-law works for the California Department of Corrections. There was nothing in her responses or her demeanor that would justify just excusing her other than it being a race-based exclusion is our position.
“The Court: And I believe that there was another Hispanic that was excused not by the People, but by the defense, and that was [Carolyn G.].
“[Counsel for Julian]: That was a legitimate reason. I didn’t excuse her.
“The Court: I’m not saying it wasn’t legitimate. You just brought up—I’m not arguing with you, but I want the record to be clear, you argued that even a person who the People should want to have on, namely law enforcement background, may still kick off because of being Hispanic. I’m just pointing out that [Carolyn G.] was another person that is Hispanic background but they did not kick off and I believe her background was that she had been the one who had been kidnapped.
“[Counsel for Julian]: Right. I would say she would want to be kept on by the People because she’s been a victim of a violent crime at gunpoint.
“The Court: But your argument was that so should the other person [Elizabeth G.] because they had law enforcement background.
“[Counsel for Julian]: I didn’t say she was law enforcement background.
“The Court: I thought you said—
“[Counsel for Julian]: I was looking over my notes in terms of what [Elizabeth G.] said in answer to the nine questions that are up on the little poster. She responded that she has friends in the Porterville [Police Department].
*938“The Court: Right. Law enforcement people.
“[Counsel for Julian]: And a brother who works for California Department of Corrections. So I’m just saying that based on those responses, there’s no legitimate reason to exclude her based on those responses other than the fact that she has her—she’s Hispanic. I’m trying to make that for the record. [][] [The prosecutor] argued that [Mary L.] would be sympathetic because she works with at risk youth. That’s his reason for excusing her. But for the record also the reason [Carolyn G.] was excused, as I understand it from [counsel for John Reynoso], is because she was a victim of violent crime where guns were involved. That’s what we have here.
“The Court: Okay. Thank you.
“[The Prosecutor]: I’d like the record to reflect that defense counsel also had a challenge to [Mrs. T] [who] seemed and looked Hispanic to me and I think they exercised or kicked off her as well.[2]
“The Court: All right. We’ll see you tomorrow morning at 9:45.”
The transcript reflects counsel’s argument that there was nothing in Elizabeth G.’s background (law enforcement ties) or in her occupation as a customer service representative that would make her sympathetic to the defense; to the contrary, her law enforcement ties would, if anything, make her sympathetic to the prosecution. Counsel added that nothing in Elizabeth G.’s responses or demeanor would justify excusing her. Counsel asserted that the prosecutor’s stated race-neutral reasons for excusing Elizabeth G. were not legitimate and that she was excused because she was Hispanic.
Rather than respond directly to these claims, the trial court instead noted that defense counsel had excused a Hispanic juror (Carolyn G.). When counsel argued that the reasons for excusing Carolyn G. were legitimate, the court conclusorily replied that a Hispanic juror with law enforcement ties may still be peremptorily excused by the People, and a Hispanic juror who had been kidnapped had not been excused by the People. Counsel then made it clear that Carolyn G. was excused precisely because she was the victim of a violent crime (kidnapping and attempted rape) at gunpoint, which might make her sympathetic to the prosecution. Unquestionably, this is a legitimate race-neutral reason for excusing a prospective juror. (See, e.g., People v. Johnson (1989) 47 Cal.3d 1194, 1215 [255 Cal.Rptr. 569, 767 P.2d 1047], quoting People v. Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 275 (Wheeler) [“ ‘a *939defendant may suspect prejudice on the part of one juror because he has been the victim of crime’ ”].) Yet the court persisted in highlighting Elizabeth G.’s law enforcement ties and stating, without explanation, that the prosecutor might still excuse such a juror.
Counsel again explained that Carolyn G. was excused by the defense for the legitimate race-neutral reason that she was the victim of a kidnapping at gunpoint and might be considered sympathetic to the prosecution. He added that Mary L., the other Hispanic juror, was excused by the prosecution for the legitimate race-neutral reason that she worked with at-risk youth and might be considered sympathetic to the defense. In contrast, stated counsel, there was no legitimate race-neutral reason for excusing Elizabeth G. The court ignored counsel’s argument. Then the prosecutor spoke, and instead of justifying his stated reasons for excusing Elizabeth G., he reminded the court that defense counsel had challenged another prospective juror (Mrs. T.) who appeared to be Hispanic. Again, the trial judge did not respond, nor did he affirmatively state that the court’s prior ruling would stand. Instead, the judge simply dismissed the parties for the day.
THE MAJORITY’S ASSERTIONS
From this record, the majority makes two unfounded assertions: (1) the trial court was not required to make a sincere and reasoned attempt to evaluate the prosecutor’s explanation and clearly express its findings (Silva, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 386); and (2) there was no error under People v. Snow (1987) 44 Cal.3d 216, 225 [242 Cal.Rptr. 477, 746 P.2d 452] (Snow), where we held “the propriety of the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges must be determined without regard to the validity of defendant’s own challenges.” I dissent.
UNDERMINING SILVA
Silva was a unanimous opinion decided just two years ago. We held that the trial court erred in denying a Wheeler motion as to a prospective Hispanic juror because “[n]othing in the transcript of voir dire supports the prosecutor’s assertions that [the juror] would be reluctant to return a death verdict or that he was ‘an extremely aggressive person.’ ” (Silva, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 385, italics added.) We then held that “when the *940prosecutor’s stated reasons [for excusing a juror] are either unsupported by the record, inherently implausible, or both” (id. at p. 386, italics added), the trial court must make a sincere and reasoned attempt to evaluate the prosecutor’s explanation and clearly express its findings. (Id. at pp. 385, 386.) Because “both of the prosecutor’s stated reasons [for excusing Juror M.] were factually unsupported by the record,” we found a Batson/Wheeler violation. (Silva, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 386, italics added.) Notably, the word contradict does not appear in the Silva opinion.
Yet today, without a sound basis in logic or law, a majority of this court elevates Silva’s “unsupported by the record” standard to a much stricter “contradicted by the record” standard: “Unlike the reasons given by the prosecutor in Silva, the prosecutor’s reasons given in this case for peremptorily excusing Elizabeth G. were neither inherently implausible, nor affirmatively contradicted by anything in the record.” (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 925-926, italics added.) The majority also states: “Nor have we found anything in the record to directly contradict the trial court’s express findings to that effect, in contrast to the facts of Silva.” (Id. at p. 926, italics added.)3 The majority concludes: “[W]here the prosecutor’s reasons for excusing the juror are neither contradicted by the record nor inherently implausible (Silva, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 386), ... a Batson/Wheeler motion [may be] denied, notwithstanding that the record does not contain detailed findings regarding the reasons for the exercise of each such peremptory challenge.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 929, italics added)
The effect of the majority’s ruling, as noted by Justice Kennard, is to insulate prosecutors and others who improperly discriminate against jurors for reasons of group bias. (Dis. opn. of Kennard, J., ante, at p. 930.) Here, the prosecutor’s first purported race-neutral reason for excusing Elizabeth G. was that, as a customer service representative, “she did not have enough educational experience.” I agree with the majority’s assertion that this reason is of “questionable persuasiveness” (maj. opn., ante, at p. 924) and “a dubious notion when viewed in isolation.” (Id. at p. 925.) However, I disagree that this reason, without further explanation, is “subjectively] genuine[]” (id. at p. 924, italics added) and “legitimate in the sense that it would not deny defendants equal protection of law.” (Id. at p. 925.) Simply stated, there is nothing in the record to suggest that customer service representatives generally, or this particular juror, lacked educational experience.
The majority, however, reasons that “If a prosecutor can lawfully peremptorily excuse a potential juror based on a hunch or suspicion, or because he does not like the potential juror’s hairstyle, or because he observed the potential juror glare at him, or smile at the defendant or defense counsel, then surely he can challenge a potential juror whose occupation, in the prosecutor’s *941subjective estimation, would not render him or her the best type of juror to sit on the case for which the jury is being selected.” (Id. at pp. 924-925, italics added.) But the prosecutor did not state he had a hunch, nor did he state that he observed a smile, a glare or poorly groomed hair. Nor did he state that he peremptorily challenged Elizabeth G. because of her occupation; rather, the prosecutor stated that “she did not have enough educational experience.” Batson requires an examination of the prosecutor’s stated race-neutral explanation. (Purkett v. Elem, supra, 514 U.S. at p. 767.)4 Here, not only is the prosecutor’s stated excuse unsupported by the record, it is lacking in any reasonable foundation in common knowledge or common sense.5 The subjective genuineness of the prosecutor’s stated excuse, therefore, was questionable and demands further inquiry by the trial court.
Moreover, the prosecutor’s first unsupported excuse was followed by a second excuse that was further disputed by defendant. Specifically, after the prosecutor stated “[i]t seemed like [Elizabeth G.] was not paying attention to the proceedings and [he] felt that she was not involved in the process,” the defense attorney replied, “[t]here was nothing in her responses or demeanor that would justify excusing her other than it being a race-based exclusion.” In other words, defense counsel argued to the court that the prosecutor’s stated race-neutral reason for excusing Elizabeth G. was unsupported by the record and contradicted by his own observations. Yet the trial court did not attempt to resolve this factual dispute by stating its own observations of the juror’s alleged inattentiveness. Instead, the trial court completely ignored the defense attorney’s observations and argument.
The majority argues that the prosecutor’s demeanor-based reason is supported by the record because Elizabeth G. stated during voir dire that “she had no prior jury experience and no past contact with the criminal justice system in any capacity.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 924.) But the prosecutor did not rely upon this statement and, as noted, Batson requires that we examine the prosecutor’s stated excuse. The prosecutor stated that Elizabeth G. “was not paying attention.” Obviously, not paying attention is logically unrelated to prior jury service or prior contact with the criminal justice system. More importantly, the prosecutor’s assertion that Elizabeth G. “was not paying attention” was directly contradicted by the defense. As noted by Justice *942Kennard, “This contrary assertion created a factual dispute for the trial court to resolve.” (Dis. opn. of Kennard, J., ante, at p. 932.)
Thus, in the present case, we have one race-neutral reason (education) that is unsupported by the record and belied by common knowledge and common sense, and a second race-neutral reason (demeanor) that was contradicted by defense counsel.6 Under our recent, unanimous Silva holding, the trial court is obligated to make a sincere and reasoned attempt to evaluate the prosecutor’s explanations and clearly express its findings.7
*943Because it cannot justify its holding based on the reasons stated by the prosecutor, the majority essentially rewrites Silva. Whereas Silva held that a trial court’s obligation to inquire was triggered by a race-neutral excuse unsupported by the record, the majority today holds that such an obligation is triggered only where such an excuse is contradicted by the record. However, where the unexamined race-neutral excuse belies common sense or is contradicted by defense counsel, we cannot presume that the prosecutor has exercised the peremptory challenge in a constitutional manner. (People v. Turner (1994) 8 Cal.4th 137, 165 [32 Cal.Rptr.2d 762, 878 P.2d 521].) Under such circumstances, it is all the more important that the trial court “make a ‘sincere and reasoned attempt to evaluate the prosecutor’s explanation’ [citation] and to clearly express its findings [citation].” (Silva, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 385.)
SNOW VIOLATION
In Wheeler, “[i]nstead of justifying his own conduct, the prosecutor simply retorted that defense counsel seemed in their turn to be striking from the jury . . . most of those with Spanish surnames.” (Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 283, fn. 30.) We held that “[a] party does not sustain his burden of justification by attempting to cast a different burden on his opponent.” (Ibid.) In Snow, supra, 44 Cal.3d at page 225, we reiterated this aspect of the Wheeler holding and stated: “As the People now concede, the propriety of the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges must be determined without regard to the validity of defendant’s own challenges.”
Here, defense counsel contested the prosecutor’s purported race-neutral reasons for challenging Juror Elizabeth G. As noted above, the trial court, in violation of Silva, failed to sincerely evaluate the prosecutor’s explanation and failed to make particularized findings. (Silva, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 386.) The trial court compounded its error by committing a Snow violation: it attempted to justify the prosecutor’s conduct by pointing out that defense counsel had challenged a Hispanic juror. The prosecutor then asked “the record to reflect that defense counsel also had a challenge to [Mrs. T.] [who] seemed and looked Hispanic to me.” The trial court did not respond, but excused the parties for the day.
The majority attempts to justify the court’s actions by stating: “The court’s point was simply this: if defense counsel’s threshold premise was true, then the prosecutor, consistent with that premise, had indeed not excused Carolyn G. given her favorable law enforcement contacts, notwithstanding her Hispanic ancestry. In context, the point the trial court was obviously trying to make was that the prosecutor did seek to retain jurors with law enforcement contacts who would normally be deemed favorable to the prosecution, *944including Carolyn G., who was Hispanic. By parity of reasoning, one might expect the prosecutor to have likewise sought to retain Prospective Juror Elizabeth G. who, like Carolyn G., had such favorable law enforcement contacts, notwithstanding her Hispanic ancestry, and that Elizabeth G. would have been retained were it not for the other reasons of specific bias which the prosecutor indicated had in fact motivated him to excuse her (her perceived lack of ‘educational experience’ given her occupation, coupled with her apparent inattentiveness and lack of involvement in the jury selection proceedings).” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 927-928.)
The majority’s assertion is unfounded.8 Defense counsel’s point was that there were legitimate race-neutral reasons for challenging Mary L. and Carolyn G., but there was likewise no legitimate race-neutral reason for challenging Elizabeth G. But the trial court completely ignored this argument and stated only that the defense, like the prosecution, had excused a Hispanic juror, which constitutes a violation of Snow because the court attempted to justify the prosecutor’s peremptory challenge by referencing the validity of the defendant’s peremptory challenge. I do not share in the majority’s confidence that this is not what occurred because the prosecutor, who was present during this exchange, asked “the record to reflect that defense counsel also had a challenge to [Mrs. T.j [who] seemed and looked Hispanic to me.” Clearly, the prosecutor, like the court, attempted to justify the peremptory challenge of Elizabeth G. by casting aspersion on the defense. This is a violation of Snow.
*945CONCLUSION
The majority today turns a blind eye to our recent precedent and effectively allows prosecutors to improperly discriminate against prospective Hispanic, African-American and other cognizable group jurors with impunity. The majority opinion signals a significant retreat in the evolution of our Wheeler jurisprudence and strikes a major blow against a defendant’s constitutional right to a fair, impartial, and representative jury. Therefore I dissent.
Kennard, J., and Werdegar, J., concurred.
Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied October 29, 2003.

 In People v. Johnson (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1302, 1324-1325 [1 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 71 P.3d 270], we held that “a reviewing court should not attempt its own comparative juror analysis for the first time on appeal,” but “[wjhen the objecting party presents comparative juror analysis to the trial court, the reviewing court must consider that evidence, along with everything else of *937relevance, in reviewing, deferentially, the trial court’s ruling.” In light of Johnson, it is incumbent upon objecting parties to make a full record at step two or step three of a Batson/Wheeler hearing. (People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 [148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748].)

 The prospective juror that the prosecutor was referring to was excused by the defense during the selection of alternate jurors.

 This last statement is factually incorrect. The trial court made no express findings as to Prospective Juror Elizabeth G.’s education or demeanor.

 See also Hernandez v. New York (1991) 500 U.S. 352, 358-359 [114 L.Ed.2d 395, 111 S.Ct. 1859] (plur. opn.) (“[I]f the requisite [prima facie] showing has been made [by the defendant], the burden shifts to the prosecutor to articulate a race-neutral explanation for striking the jurors in question.”).

 The majority attempts to bolster its position by pointing out that an attorney could legitimately “excuse a potential juror because he or she feels the potential juror’s occupation reflects too much education.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 925, fn. 6.) While common knowledge and common sense might suggest that doctors, mathematicians and engineers, for example, are highly educated and therefore might have “too much education” to sit on a particular jury, there is no basis upon which to conclude that customer service representatives do not have enough educational experience to sit on a particular jury.

 The majority attempts to support its claim that the prosecutor’s reasons for challenging Elizabeth G. were not pretextual by pointing out that he accepted “the jury 14 times with Elizabeth G. seated in the jury box” before challenging her. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 926.) This assertion is misleading because it neglects two factors: (1) because this was a two-defendant case, each side had 30 peremptory challenges in selecting the jury (Code Civ. Proc. § 231, subd. (a)) and the two defense attorneys were alternating their 20 joint challenges; this allowed the prosecutor to wait before exercising his peremptory challenges; and (2) the trial court used the “six pack” method of jury selection, which also allows attorneys to manage their peremptory challenges since they know in advance which six prospective jurors will replace the prospective jurors in the jury box who are challenged. Specifically, the court called the names of 18 prospective jurors: 12 prospective jurors were placed in the jury box (one of whom was Elizabeth G.), and an additional six prospective jurors were seated outside the jury box (the six-pack). The court then posed questions to the 18 prospective jurors and once this process was completed, seven peremptory challenges were exercised, leaving 11 prospective jurors in the jury box and leaving no prospective jurors in the six-pack. At this juncture, seven additional prospective jurors were called by the court; one prospective juror was placed in the jury box, and the remaining six prospective jurors were placed in the six-pack. Once the questioning of these seven prospective jurors was completed (the second round of questioning), the above process was repeated. Jury selection was completed after three rounds of questioning. As noted, Elizabeth G. was one of the original 12 prospective jurors placed in the jury box. The prosecutor challenged one juror (who knew defense counsel) after the first round of questioning and the defense challenged six jurors. Seven new names were called, including Mary L. and Joe S. After the defense had challenged four jurors following the second round of questioning, the prosecutor challenged Joe S., a prospective juror who worked in a law office. The defense then passed. The prosecutor then challenged the first Hispanic prospective juror, Mary L. After defense challenged a juror, seven new names were called, including Carolyn G. Carolyn G. was the fourth prospective juror challenged by the defense after the third round of questioning. The prosecutor then excused Elizabeth G. The defense and prosecutor then accepted the jury. Two events stand out: (1) the prosecutor’s challenge of the first Hispanic juror (Mary L.) immediately after defense counsel had accepted the jury (voir dire would have otherwise ended); and (2) the prosecutor’s challenge of Elizabeth G. two rounds subsequent to her name being called (he exercised his three other peremptory challenges in the same round those jurors’ names were called). Standing alone, these two events are arguably innocuous; but viewed in the context of the other evidence of the prosecutor’s discriminatory intent, his peremptory challenge strategy is consistent with an intent to remove Hispanics from the jury.

 See also People v. Fuentes (1991) 54 Cal.3d 707, 720 [286 Cal.Rptr. 792, 818 P.2d 75] (where prosecutor offered sham and valid reasons for excusing a juror, court is obligated to make a “truly ‘reasoned attempt’ to evaluate the prosecutor’s explanations” and is required to address the challenged jurors individually).

 The majority’s premise is also flawed because “there [is] no way to determine whether the prosecutor would have challenged Carolyn G. had the defense not done so first.” (Dis. opn., Kennard, J., ante, at p. 933.) The majority accuses the dissenting justices of “engag[ing] in speculation” on this point because the “record lends no support to the insinuation that the prosecutor ‘might’ have challenged” Carolyn G. because “the prosecutor passed and accepted the jury with Carolyn G. seated in the jury box four times before the defense elected to peremptorily excuse her.” (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 928-929, fn. 9.) This is the sheerest conjecture and is completely undermined by the record. As pointed out by the majority on three occasions, the prosecutor accepted Elizabeth G. “14 times” before he peremptorily excused her. (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 909, 926.) It is disingenuous to now claim there is “no support” in the record that the prosecutor would not have excused Carolyn G. where only four opportunities for a peremptory challenge had passed.