 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Rizo4/24/2002
challenge was motivated by group bias rather than a genuine concern he might be unfavorable.
The trial court's finding of no prima facie case of group bias is further supported by the record with respect to Jurors Wo. and A., the other two African-Americans excused by the prosecutor. The record with respect to Juror Wo. is particularly noteworthy. At the same time the blue jury was being selected, Juror Wo.'s niece and nephew were being prosecuted by the same deputy district attorney who prosecuted this case. The charges against Juror Wo.'s relative, murder and conspiracy, also were closely similar to the charges in this case.
Juror A. also had a family member who had been a criminal defendant; her son had been convicted of domestic violence. When asked whether her son had been treated fairly, Juror A. said that, although the authorities did what they were supposed to do with the information they got, she felt that because of the O.J. Simpson trial the system had changed. In particular, there was a tendency to exaggerate alleged domestic violence by males as opposed to females.
The fact Juror Wo. had relatives being prosecuted by the prosecutor in this case clearly was a reasonable ground for challenging him. Similarly, Juror A.'s reservations about the justice system's treatment of her son provided a reasonable ground for excusing her. While the voir dire of Juror Wa. did not reveal grounds for challenge as clear as these, the court could consider the strength of the grounds for challenging Jurors Wo. and A. in deciding whether a prima facie case of group bias had been shown overall. The fact that "a single discriminatory exclusion may violate a defendant's right to a representative jury" (People v. Fuentes (1991) 54 Cal.3d 707, 716, fn. 4) does not mean the court must consider each challenge in a vacuum. Rather, as stated, the Supreme Court has held a court must consider "`all the circumstances of the case . . . .'" (People v. Howard, supra, 1 Cal.4th 1132, 1155.)
In this regard, this case is distinguishable from People v. Snow (1987) 44 Cal.3d 216, on which defendants rely. In Snow, several African-American jurors were excused after giving seemingly routine, acceptable responses to the prosecutor's questions. (Id., at p. 223.) Here, while Juror Wa.'s responses might have seemed unremarkable, that was not the case with respect to the other African-Americans the prosecutor excused.
Defendants also fault the trial court for relying on the fact two African-Americans remained on the jury after the prosecutor excused Juror Wa. However, although that fact obviously was not conclusive, it was a legitimate consideration. (See People v. Jenkins, supra, 22 Cal.4th 900, 994; People v. Turner, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 168.)
Defendants additionally argue that, since the court had found a prima facie case in the selection of the red jury and the first blue panel and had dismissed the first blue panel, it should also have found a prima facie case as to the second blue panel. In People v. Irvin (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1340, however, the court stated, "Although Wheeler motions may be made seriatim, each Wheeler motion is itself separate and discrete and is resolved definitively and independently of each other." (Id., at p. 1351.) Thus, the court held, a new prima facie showing must be made with regard to each motion. (Ibid.)
C. Alleged Use of Challenges to Cause Mistrial
In an argument related to their Wheeler/Batson challenges, the blue jury defendants contend the prosecutor deliberately dismissed African-Americans because he wanted a new panel with fewer African-Americans and knew that if he dismissed enough of them the court wou
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.
|
|