 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Rizo4/24/2002
476 U.S. 79 [106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69] (Batson).
" here is a presumption that a prosecutor uses his peremptory challenges in a constitutional manner." (People v. Alvarez (1996) 14 Cal.4th 155, 198.) Accordingly, to establish a Wheeler-Batson violation, the defendant must first make a prima facie showing that jurors are being challenged based on their group membership. (People v. Turner (1994) 8 Cal.4th 137, 164.)
To make a prima facie showing, the defendant must demonstrate that, considering all the circumstances of the case, there is a strong likelihood (i.e., a reasonable inference) that such jurors are being challenged because of their group association rather than because of any specific bias. (People v. Fudge (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1075, 1096; People v. Box (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1153, 1188, fn. 7 [strong likelihood means a reasonable inference].) Although the removal of all members of a certain group may give rise to an inference of impropriety, especially when the defendant belongs to the same group, the inference is not conclusive. (People v. Howard (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1132, 1156.)
If the trial court finds the defendant has made a prima facie showing of group bias, the burden shifts to the prosecution to articulate permissible reasons for the challenges, relating to the case to be tried. (People v. Turner, supra, 8 Cal.4th 137, 164.) After the prosecutor articulates permissible reasons, the court must determine (1) whether the reasons are adequate, i.e., not mere surrogates or proxies for group membership, and (2) whether they are genuine, i.e., whether the prosecutor actually made the challenges for the stated reasons. (People v. Alvarez, supra, 14 Cal.4th 155, 197.) As long as the court makes a "`"sincere and reasoned effort"'" to evaluate the reasons stated, its conclusions are entitled to deference on appeal (People v. Jackson (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1164, 1197) and are reviewed only for substantial evidence. (Alvarez, supra, at p. 197.)
Although Wheeler and Batson prohibit the exercise of peremptory challenges based on group membership, neither case "overturned the traditional rule that peremptory challenges are available against individual jurors whom counsel suspects even for trivial reasons." (People v. Montiel (1993) 5 Cal.4th 877, 910, fn. 9.) "Jurors may be excused based on `hunches' and even `arbitrary' exclusion is permissible, so long as the reasons are not based on impermissible group bias." (People v. Turner, supra, 8 Cal.4th 137, 165.) "` he ultimate burden of persuasion regarding racial motivation rests with, and never shifts from, the opponent of the strike.'" (People v. Dunn (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1039, 1051.)
A. Red Jury (Ivan)
During selection of the red jury, the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to excuse two African-Americans, Jurors P. and B. Ivan moved to dismiss the jury pursuant to Wheeler based on those two challenges and another to a Hispanic juror. The court found no prima facie case of group bias and denied the motion.
Later, the prosecutor excused two more African-Americans. Ivan renewed his Wheeler motion, noting the prosecutor had used four out of seventeen challenges to excuse African-Americans and had excused four out of the five African-Americans on the panel, leaving only one on the jury.
The court found Ivan had made a prima facie showing of group bias, requiring the prosecutor to provide race-neutral reasons for the challenges. The prosecutor did so. Ivan contends the explanations for excusing Jurors P. and B. were inadequate.
Juror P. was a school bus driver. Her brother had been murdered in 1982 by her sister-in-law and her sister-in-law's boyfriend. Her bro
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|