 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Rizo4/24/2002
ther-in-law had been convicted of rape of her sister about two years before the trial in this case. Juror P. was a witness in the case; she did not state whether for the prosecution or defense.
The prosecutor stated he excused Juror P. because of her involvement with the legal system and because she seemed inarticulate and delayed in her responses to questions. He stated he did not know which side she might favor from her experiences with the legal system.
The court found the explanation adequate, noting Juror P. seemed uncomfortable answering questions, as though she did not want to be in court. She acted differently from most of the jurors. The court also accepted the prosecutor's concern about Juror P.'s involvement with the criminal justice system as a legitimate reason for excusing her.
We find the court made a sincere and reasoned effort to evaluate the prosecutor's reasons for excusing Juror P., entitling its ruling to deference on appeal. Deference is particularly appropriate given the court's reliance on subjective factors such as Juror P.'s apparent discomfort with the proceedings, which of course this court cannot evaluate on the printed record. Also, the record does offer some support for the prosecutor's surmise that Juror P. may have had difficulty understanding and responding to questions. When asked whether there was a reason she could not be fair and impartial, Juror P. twice said "Yes" before then answering "Yes" to the question, "Can you be fair and impartial?"
In addition, past experience with the criminal justice system is a recognized race-neutral basis for exclusion, even where it is not clear which side might tend to benefit from the juror's past experience. (See People v. Turner, supra, 8 Cal.4th 137, 170 [challenge supported based on juror's unsatisfactory past experience with criminal justice system, even though prosecutor "could not ascertain whether that experience would favor the defense or prosecution"]; see also People v. Buckley (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 658, 665-667 [record suggested reasonable grounds for challenging juror whose friend was arrested for driving under the influence , even though charges were dropped and juror believed friend was treated fairly by police and district attorney].) Although the prosecutor in this case did not go into the details of Juror P.'s experiences in connection with the murder of her brother and the prosecution of her brother-in-law, it is reasonable to suppose, given the fact the cases involved close relatives as victims and, in one case, as the defendant, that her experiences were not positive ones. " he prosecutor is entitled to exercise a certain number of peremptory challenges simply on a suspicion that the juror will be unfavorable to his or her cause, and this is considered not to impair defendant's right to an impartial jury, because the defense has the same right." (People v. Pinholster (1992) 1 Cal.4th 865, 914.)
Moreover, the prosecutor's failure to elicit greater detail was understandable. The court placed time limits on attorney voir dire (15 minutes) which significantly curtailed questioning of individual jurors. We therefore find the court's ruling as to Juror P. to be adequately supported.
Juror B. was a postal worker whose brother had been convicted of manslaughter. Another brother had been murdered, about 20 years earlier. Juror B. himself had been a victim of a burglary and two car thefts.
The fact Juror B.'s brother had been convicted of manslaughter was enough by itself to support exclusion. " he arrest or conviction of a juror's relative provides a legitimate, group-neutral basis for excluding a juror." (People v. Turner (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th
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.
|
|