Group Bias (Batson/Wheeler) (Including P.C. 231.7)
Category > Group Bias (Batson/Wheeler) (Including P.C. 231.7)
Updated 7/12/2024The trial court erred in denying the Batson motion where the black prospective juror’s education was similar to both the defense and prosecution experts.The prosecution used a peremptory challenge against a black female prospective juror. However, the record did not support the prosecutor’s justifications for the challenge. The claim that the juror’s educational background was similar to that of the defense experts seemed pretextual where the prosecution’s experts had a similar background. The fact that she believed there was unfairness in the system (a fact that is presumptively invalid under the Racial Justice Act which was not yet effective) did not justify the challenge. The fact that the juror was opinionated did not justify the strike as it was not applied to the other prospective jurors.id: 28311
Updated 6/1/2024The prosecutor’s reasons supporting the peremptory challenge of a Hispanic juror based on the lack of life experience were invalid.Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7 was enacted to help eradicate the improper removal of jurors based on race, ethnicity and gender. A facially neutral reason given by a party to remove a juror – such as the lack of a life experience – cannot be based on a presumptively invalid reason such as the lack of employment or demeanor absent reasons given by the party seeking to challenge the juror’s ability to be fair.id: 28286
Updated 3/4/2024The prosecutor committed Batson error by excusing a black prospective juror who expressed support for the Black Lives Matter. Three black defendants were charged with the murder of black victims. The prosecutor used peremptory challenges to excuse various black potential jurors. Defendants established a prima facie case at the first stage of Batson/Wheeler analysis, and the prosecutor’s proffered reason for the strike - that the juror was hostile when asked about supporting Black Lives Matter and had “anti-prosecution issues” - should not have been credited. The error required reversal of all convictions. id: 27509
Updated 2/4/2024After a prima facie finding of bias under Batson/Wheeler, the defendant is entitled to discover the prosecution’s jury selection notes.Where a prima facie case of racial bias under Batson/Wheeler has been made, a defendant is entitled to discover the prosecution’s jury selection notes under Penal Code section 1054.9. To the extent the prosecution maintains the notes reflect the prosecution’s impressions, conclusions or theories about case strategy rather than impressions about perspective jurors, it bears the burden to make that foundational proffer and seek redactions from the court.id: 27674
Updated 2/2/2024Trial court’s failure to use the new Batson analysis following AB 3070 required a reversal.The defense filed a Batson motion after the prosecution used peremptory challenges on black prospective jurors. The court denied the motion under the old framework under AB 3070, the Legislature enacted Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7 where the defense is no longer required to make a prima facie showing a racial discrimination. When the prosecutor realized the law had changed, he said he was sticking by his original statements when applying the new law. The court still applied the issue under the old law. No objection was required as it would have been futile. The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial.id: 27875
Updated 2/1/2024Prosecutor’s peremptory strike of a black female prospective juror violated Batson/Wheeler where the juror was qualified and the prosecutor twisted a neutral response she made to a question, which was evidence of discriminatory intent.The prosecutor’s use of a peremptory challenged against a black woman violated Batson/Wheeler principles. The prospective juror had many qualities prosecutors like —she had been a crime victim, had several friends in law enforcement, and had previously been on a criminal jury that reached a verdict. Discriminatory intent was shown by the prosecutor’s decision to strike five other black women, and a pretextual act in misconstruing the prospective juror’s rational answer to a hypothetical question. The fact that some black jurors were ultimately seated did not dispel the existence of a discriminatory motive.id: 27957
When the prosecutor offers both valid and invalid reasons in support of the peremptory challenge of a juror, the taint from the impermissible reason requires reversal.The trial court erred in denying defendant’s Batson/Wheeler motion because the prosecutor impermissibly excused two openly gay prospective jurors based on unsupported assumptions predicated on their sexual orientation. It did not matter that the prosecutor also offered other valid reasons for excusing the jurors.id: 25638
Excusal of gay prospective jurors had to be re-examined on remand to assess the prosecutor’s mixed motives.Defendant was an openly gay man convicted of robbery. During voir dire, the prosecution used peremptory challenges to excuse two openly gay prospective jurors. Excluding prospective jurors based on sexual orientation runs afoul of Batson/Wheeler principles, but the prosecutor argued the jurors were excused for other legitimate reasons. The matter was remanded for a hearing so the trial court could properly assess the prosecutor’s mixed motives in this context. id: 25205
The prosecutor committed Batson/Wheeler error by challenging a black prospective juror for working for a liberal organization where the record did not support that claim.The trial court erred in finding the prosecutor provided race-neutral reasons for using a peremptory challenge against a black prospective juror. When asked about her job, the juror said she was a field representative for the Department of Commerce, and collected information about county residents that she provided to Congress and the President - she had done the job for 22 years. The prosecutor said he excused her because she worked for a “liberal political organization” connected to the Democratic Party. But there was no evidence to support that. The prosecutor later gave two race neutral reasons to exclude the juror, including a prior experience with police, but these were raised only after the prosecutor was questioned about his initial justification.id: 24602
The prosecutor discriminated against men by using peremptory challenges against two men simply because she preferred the next prospective jurors in line (who happened to be women). The trial court erred by denying defendant’s Batson/Wheeler motion alleging that the prosecutor had discriminated against men during jury selection. The prosecutor’s claim that she excused the two male jurors because in both cases she preferred the next prospective jurors did nothing to dispel the inference that she preferred women to men and was exercising her peremptory challenges to affect that preference. id: 24000
The trial court erred by reseating the prospective juror rather than dismissing the venire after granting defendant’s Wheeler motion.The trial court prejudicially erred by reseating a prospective juror improperly challenged by the prosecution instead of discharging the venire after it granted defendant’s Wheeler motion, where defendant neither waived nor consented to the juror’s reseating.id: 22612
The trial court prejudicially erred under Batson/Wheeler by accepting the prosecutor’s unverified explanation for challenging the Vietnamese potential jurors which included a vague claim about a juror’s demeanor.Defendant, a Vietnamese male was convicted of the rape and robbery of a Vietnamese prostitute. The trial court erred in denying his Batson/Wheeler motion challenging the Vietnamese prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges against prospective jurors who appeared Vietnamese. Evidence did not support the prosecutor’s claim that one prospective juror was not participating during voir dire where the record showed the juror twice volunteered answers to the prosecutor’s general questions. Moreover, even though defense counsel failed to question the prosecutor’s assertion about the claim of the juror’s bad body language, the record was devoid of any support for that claim and it was not entitled to deference.id: 21849
The fact that a Hispanic prospective juror spoke Spanish was not a race neutral reason that would support a peremptory challenge under Batson.The trial court erred in accepting the prosecutor’s reasons for dismissing a Hispanic prospective juror. The reason given by the prosecutor was that the juror did not say he would have a problem accepting an interpreter’s translation of testimony given in Spanish. Moreover, the record did not support the alternative reasons for excusing the juror-that he was young and childless–because there was no evidence of either. The error required reversal of the conviction.id: 20477
Prosecutor's assertion that naturalized citizens are unable to understand the law did not justify exclusion of a prospective juror.Nothing in the jurors' backgrounds or responses justified a peremptory challenge, other than their hispanic race. The court ask the reasons for the exclusion of the two jurors. This inquiry constituted an implied prima facie finding of systematic exclusion. The prosecutor then expressly stated that one juror was excused because of his status as a naturalized citizen and the other was excused because of body language. These reasons did not justify exclusion of the jurors and required reversal of the convictions.id: 12611
Failure to inquire into whether prosecutor's justification in response to Wheeler challenge applied to particular challenged jurors constituted prejudicial error.Defendant made an objection on <i>Wheeler</i> grounds after the prosecutor challenged the first four jurors, all of whom were black. When the voir dire concluded, the court instructed the prosecutor to obtain his records and justify his challenges. These statements constituted an implicit finding of a prima facie case of improper exclusion based on race. The court then made some effort to evaluate the prosecutor's explanations, but the evaluations were made in the abstract. The court failed to determine whether the bona fide or sham reasons actually applied to particular challenged jurors. For this reason the court did not satisfy its <i>Wheeler</i> obligation of inquiry and evaluation and the judgment was reversed.id: 12606
Men constitute a cognizable group for Wheeler purposes.Appellant argued the prosecutor improperly used peremptory challenges to systematically exclude white males from the jury. The trial court and prosecutors erroneously concluded that men do not constitute a cognizable class. Moreover, <i>Wheeler</i> error was committed where the prosecutor failed to present any evidence for the exercise of two peremptory challenges. The Court of Appeal further found that the prosecutor should have refused to place on the record any reasons for excluding jurors until the court made a specific finding on the record that defense counsel had made a prima facia showing of discriminatory exercise of peremptory challenges.id: 12608
A white defendant has standing to object to a prosecutor's peremptory challenges of black jurors.In a 7-2 opinion written by Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court relied on its earlier decision in <i>Batson v. Kentucky</i>, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) and <i>Holland v. Illinois</i>, 110 S.Ct. 803 (1990) to hold that the equal protection clause prohibits a prosecutor from using peremptory challenges to exclude jurors solely by reason of their race. The court then held that a criminal defendant has standing to raise the equal protection right of jurors improperly excluded on racial grounds. The defendant's race is irrelevant to his standing to object to the discriminatory use of peremptory challenges. Thus the court held that the white defendant in this case had standing to object to the prosecutor's peremptory challenge of black jurors, and his conviction was reversed. Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Rehnquist dissented.id: 12585
Wheeler motion was not untimely in the capital case where it was raised after the panel of 12 had been sworn and during the selection of the alternates.In defendant's capital case the trial court ruled defendant's Wheeler motion was untimely as to the 12 sworn jurors where the motion was raised during the selection of the alternates. However, the jury selection is not completed until the alternates are sworn. The trial court should have considered the motion as to all seven challenged Hispanic prospective jurors and not limited its inquiry to only the alternate juror selection process.id: 12622
The proper remedy following Wheeler error is to quash the venire and start over.The trial court denied defendant's Wheeler motion after listening to the prosecutor's justification for excusing blacks from the jury. The prosecutor then excused another black juror and defendant renewed his Wheeler motion. This time the court rejected the prosecutor's explanation. However, the court committed reversible error in reseating the excused juror rather than excusing the panel and calling for a new venire.id: 12618
In denying Wheeler motion the trial court erred in failing to evaluate the prosecutor's stated reasons for exercising peremptory challenges of three prospective jurors.Trial court committed prejudicial error in denying defendant's <i>Wheeler</i> motion as the record established that court did not understand its obligation to evaluate the prosecutor's stated reasons supporting the three contested challenges. Further, the record did not support a determination that the lower court understood and had in mind the distinction between specific and group bias. The judgment was reversed and the matter remanded with directions to conduct a new <i>Wheeler</i> hearing. If the court denies the motion the judgment will be reinstated after a new sentencing hearing. If the court grants the motion, the defendant will be given a new trial.id: 12607
Court erred in ruling the Wheeler motion was untimely with respect to jurors challenged prior to swearing in of the jury and in failing to excuse the entire panel after denying the prosecutor's peremptory challenge of an alternate juror.The trial court erred when it ruled defendant's <i>Wheeler</i> motion was untimely with respect to the two jurors challenged prior to the time the jury was sworn. Moreover, the trial court erred when it did not strike the entire venire following its denial of the prosecution's peremptory challenge of the alternate juror. No alternate juror was ever substituted in to sit as a juror in the case. Under these facts, the error was a trial error rather than a structural error and was subject to a harmless error analysis. The error was harmless and the matter was remanded to allow the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the validity of the prosecutor's peremptory challenges to the jurors excused before the jury was sworn.id: 12593
Trial court committed harmless error in holding the ex parte hearing on reasons for peremptory challenges following Wheeler motion in defendant's capital trial.The trial court erred by conducting the <i>Wheeler/Batson</i> hearing (justifying the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges) outside the presence of defendant and his counsel. However, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where the record showed defense counsel could not have argued anything substantial that would have changed the court's rulings.id: 15943
Gay men and women constitute a cognizable group for purposes of a Wheeler motion.Lesbians and gay males constitute a cognizable class whose exclusion resulted in a jury which failed to represent a cross-section of the community and thereby violated defendant's constitutional rights. The case was remanded for a determination by the trial court as to whether the prosecution's challenges had a valid, constitutional basis.id: 15939
Men are a cognizable group for purposes of a Wheeler motion.Defendant was convicted/charged of inflicting corporal injury and aggravated assault upon his wife. After the prosecution excused two males from the jury panel defendant raised a <i>Wheeler</i> objection, claiming the prosecution was systematically excluding men from the jury panel. The trial court refused to consider the motion because it did not consider men to be a cognizable group for <i>Wheeler</i> purposes. The court's ruling was erroneous because peremptory challenges may not be used to exclude male jurors solely because of a presumed group bias.id: 15940
Death sentence was reversed following penalty retrial where the court failed to properly evaluate the prosecutor's stated reasons for excusing jurors following defendant's Wheeler motion.The trial court found there was a prima facie case of group discrimination in the prosecutor's exercise of peremptory challenges during voir dire. The prosecutor was then given the opportunity to defend his challenges. However, nothing in the transcript of the voir dire supported the prosecutor's assertions that one of the prospective jurors would be reluctant to return a death verdict or that he was an extremely aggressive person. Moreover, the trial court's remarks did not show it was aware of the gaps between the prosecutor's stated reasons and the voir dire responses. The court failed to meets its obligation to make a sincere and reasoned attempt to evaluate the prosecutor's explanation. The error required reversal of the death sentence.id: 15016
Prosecutor's stated reason for challenging a Black juror - that people from Inglewood have a different view of drug offenders - did not defeat the prima facie showing of group bias.The two African-Americans questioned during voir dire were challenged by the prosecutor. Jurors similar in characteristics other than race had been retained. These factors, combined with defendant's African-American heritage constituted a prima facie case of group bias. In justifying the challenge against one, the prosecutor noted she was from Inglewood and he distrusted Inglewood jurors because of their lenient attitude toward drug offenders. He adamantly denied that race was a factor. However, African-Americans predominate Inglewood and to state that such jurors have a different attitude about the drug culture is an improper stereotype. The prosecutor failed to show the juror was not excluded because of group bias. The conviction was reversed.id: 15017
After the Supreme Court decided that California used an incorrect standard to determine Wheeler/Batson claims the matter was remanded to the trial court to determine whether the prosecutor's peremptory challenges were based on group bias.In People v. Johnson (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1302, the court held that to make a prima facie case that a prosecutor was using peremptory challenges for a discriminatory purpose, the defendant must show it was more likely than not that the challenges were based on impermissible group bias. In
Johnson v. California (2005) 125 S.Ct. 2410, the U.S. Supreme Court held a defendant need only produce evidence sufficient to permit the trial judge to draw an inference of group bias. The case was returned for further proceedings. The matter was remanded to the trial court to determine whether the prosecutor's challenges were based on group bias. The trial court, on remand, retains the discretion to decide that an accurate reconstruction of the voir dire is impossible due
to the passage of time, requiring a reversal of the conviction. id: 19123
The court prejudicially erred in ruling African-American men do not constitute a cognizable class under Wheeler.Defendant timely raised a <i>Wheeler</i> motion, created as complete a record as he could, established that the prosecutor excluded every African-American male examined on voir dire, and stated facts showing there was no apparent reason to exclude at least one of the three potential jurors other than his status as an African-American male. Despite this showing, the trial court ruled that African-American men do not constitute a cognizable class under <i>Wheeler</i>. The ruling was erroneous and reversal was automatic.id: 15018
On a renewed Wheeler motion the court erred in not requiring a race neutral explanation for the previously challenged jurors.After the court denied defendant's initial Wheeler motion, which was made after the prosecutor directed peremptory challenges to five black jurors, the prosecutor excused a sixth black juror. The court when it found erred a prima facie case of group discrimination had been made, but then limited the requirement of the prosecutor's race-neutral explanation, to the most recent juror who had been excused. The issue in a Wheeler motion is whether a pattern of systematic exclusion exists, and once the prima facie showing has been made, the prosecutor must provide a race-neutral explanation for all challenges. On remand, the trial court must determine not only that race neutral grounds to challenge a black prospective juror exists in the abstract, but also that the prosecutor's claim that he relied on those grounds is credible.id: 17121
Batson claim was reviewed on appeal even though it was not mentioned in the Wheeler motion at trial.Defendant raised a Wheeler claim at trial, but for the first time on appeal, asserted the claim under Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79. The issue was not waived for failure to raise it at trial. No useful purpose is served by declining to consider on appeal a claim that merely restates, under alternative legal principles, a claim otherwise identical to one that was properly preserved by a timely motion that called upon the trial court to consider the same facts and to apply a legal standard similar to that which would also determine the claim raised on appeal.id: 17470
Trial court improperly short-circuited the Wheeler process by not calling on the prosecutor to explain why he excused certain minority jurors.After defendant's Wheeler objection the trial court found a prima facie case of group bias in the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges. As to two of the challenges, the prosecutor was never called upon to explain a race neutral reason for excluding the jurors. The court remanded the matter for a hearing to determine whether the prosecutor could justify the challenges. The court noted the remand procedure was appropriate since this was a capital case and the parties likely remembered the specifics of voir dire. However, if the prosecutor could not remember why he challenged the jurors reversal of the conviction would be required.id: 17459
Court committed a Batson/Wheeler violation by failing to sufficiently inquire into the prosecutor's excusal of two black jurors based upon demeanor, dress and body language.The prosecutor used peremptory challenges to excuse the only two African-American women from the jury panel. The asserted justification for excusing the first was that she did not understand the meaning of "religious or moral convictions." This was not supported in the record. The second juror was excused because of her "demeanor." The trial court erred by accepting this meaningless explanation and should have asked for specific facts about the witness's demeanor, body language and dress the prosecutor disliked.id: 17732
Wheeler motion made within one minute of the prosecutor's challenge of a juror was not untimely.Approximately one minute after the prosecutor excused a black juror, defendant raised a Wheeler issue. The only intervening events were defendant's counsel's excusal of a different juror and the prosecutor passing his turn to excuse another. The trial court erred in ruling the motion was untimely. However, the motion failed on the merits where the juror had stated he had a son in prison and the parties may use a peremptory challenge on prospective jurors who had negative experiences with law enforcement.id: 18505
In the context of a Wheeler-Batson motion the defense must show by a preponderance of evidence that the peremptory challenge was based on purposeful racial discrimination.The trial court applied an incorrect legal standard in determining whether the prosecutor committed Wheeler-Batson error. The opponent of a peremptory challenge does not have the burden of proving purposeful racial discrimination by clear and convincing evidence. Instead, the opponent must show by a preponderance of the evidence the third step in Wheeler-Batson - whether the reasons offered to justify the challenge were race-neutral. The case was remanded to allow the trial court to determine whether defendant met his burden of proof on a preponderance of the evidence standard.id: 19455
Supreme Court holds pre-Batson claim of discriminatory jury selection was sufficient to preserve Batson claim.Defendant was convicted of murder and sentenced to death before the decision in <i>Batson v. Kentucky</i>, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). Ten days before trial, he filed a motion under <i>Swain v. Alabama</i>, 380 U.S. 202 (1965) alleging that the district attorney engaged in a pattern of exercising peremptory challenges against black venirepersons. He asked the court to require the prosecutor to justify any such challenges. The ge had no jurisdiction to resubmit the issue of defendant's guilt to the jury. Therefore, the court did not err in failing to further investigate the juror's misgivings concerning her guilt phase verdict.id: 12615
Updated 3/4/2024Prospective jurors may not be excused simply for believing that African-Americans are treated unfairly in the justice system. A trial court may not excuse for cause African-American prospective jurors solely because of their belief that the criminal justice system treats African-Americans unfairly. However, the two jurors in question were not excused for that reason. Rather, they were excused because the trial court found, based on voir dire evidence, they could not be impartial because of their bias and sympathy for the defendant. id: 27500
Updated 3/4/2024The prosecutor did not err under section 231.7 by finding the peremptory challenge of a Hispanic juror who believed law enforcement is racially biased was not improper. The prosecutor’s use of a peremptory challenge against a Hispanic prospective juror did not violate Penal Code section 231.7 or Batson-Wheeler principles. The prosecutor did err by relying on the fact that the juror had no prior jury service. However, the juror did suggest an opinion that law enforcement has a racial bias, and she was employed by a school district which the prosecutor believed was more likely to support a belief in second chances. The trial court did not err in finding the prosecutor’s use of the challenge was not improper.id: 28205
Updated 2/26/2024Record supported the trial court’s finding that the four black prospective jurors were not dismissed because of discrimination.The defense raised a Batson challenge after prosecutors used four of eight peremptory challenges against the only four black people seated in the jury box. The court said it was “close” to finding an inference of discrimination, requiring a statement of reasons from the prosecutors, but did not do so. The standard for making that determination was not entirely clear at the time, but the record supports the court’s finding as neither the defendant nor the victim were black, there was no disparity in the way prospective jurors were questioned and the record reveals apparent race-neutral reasons why the four jurors were struck.id: 26583
Updated 2/26/2024Peremptory challenges against four black prospective jurors were proper given their life experiences and attitudes towards police and the justice system. Defendants were black men convicted of murder in a case where prosecution used a challenge for cause against two potential black jurors and used peremptory challenges to excuse the remaining four black prospective jurors. The prosecutors’s justification for excusing these jurors was sufficient under Batson/Wheeler. The first indicated her nephew was treated badly in a drunk driving case and it affected her. The next believed that minorities are not treated fairly in America. The third liked police officers and had friends in the police department but noted that some abuse their authority - especial with black suspects. The last had a son, with whom she was not close, who had been arrested by one of the agencies involved in the case. These were sufficiently race-neutral reasons that supported the peremptory challenges.id: 26426
Updated 2/24/2024Prosecution did not err by challenging a black prospective juror who was reluctant to serve because the trial would conflict with a work-related conference. The prosecution used a peremptory challenge to excuse a black prospective jury who was reluctant to serve because of a prepaid, important work-related conference he wanted to attend. The trial court did not err in finding the prosecutor’s stated reason was genuine and race neutral. Defendant argued on appeal that the justification for excusing the black juror should have compared with the failure to excuse a caucasian juror with a similar reason. However, the suggested comparison was not raised in the trial court and could not be properly compared on appeal. In any event, the responses were not similar where the white juror said she was reluctant because she did not want to sit in judgment where people’s lives were in the balance.id: 26700
Updated 2/23/2024There was no Batson error in excluding a black prospective juror who said he favored his opinion over others, would not vote to convict someone he felt was not guilty and was not upset by the O.J. Simpson verdict. The prosecutor’s explanations for excusing the black prospective juror were race neutral and supported by the record. The prospective juror said he liked his opinion over other people’s opinion suggesting a lack of openness to different opinions. He said that he would not convict if he had a feeling (replacing the word “doubt”) that defendant did not commit the crime. This suggested that he might rely on hunches or feelings rather than evidence. And he said he was not upset by the O.J. Simpson verdict.id: 26880
Updated 2/22/2024Excusing a potential juror based on his demeanor and evasive nature did not violate section 231.7.Newly enacted Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7 addresses unlawful discrimination during jury selection. Evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the challenged juror was evasive, and the prosecutor explained why the juror’s unclear answers, failure to answer, and confusion prevented her from determining the juror’s views and impartiality. Neither did the court’s ruling violate the defendant’s right to a jury drawn from a representative cross-section of the community under Batson/Wheeler.id: 28110
Updated 2/4/2024The trial court erred in using the “no other reason” standard to deny defendant’s Batson challenge.The trial court erred in denying defendant’s Batson/Wheeler motion after the prosecutor used a peremptory challenge against a black prospective juror. The court erred by using a “no other reason” standard as the defense need not show discrimination was the only reason the juror was excused. Comparative juror analysis also shows the prosecution’s stated reasons were insincere. The prosecutor emphasized the juror’s prior criminal contacts (and those of relatives) but asked no questions into the details, and failed to excuse other jurors who had criminal convictions.id: 27225
Updated 2/3/2024The prosecutor’s notes taken during a Batson hearing were not protected work product where he had placed his juror rating system at issue. The defense filed a Batson/Wheeler motion during jury selection in defendant’s capital case. The motion was denied. The defense later moved for postconviction discovery under Penal Code section 1054.9 seeking access to the prosecutor’s jury selection notes. The prosecution argued the notes were protected as work product. However, during the Batson hearing the prosecutor had relied on an undisclosed juror rating system to explain his reasons for the peremptory challenges. By putting that rating system at issue, the prosecutor impliedly waived any claim of work product protection containing information about the system.id: 27726
Updated 2/3/2024The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s Batson motion where the seated jury included four black women. Defendants stood trial for capital murder in a case where all defendants, victims and most witnesses were black. The prosecution excused six black women seated in the jury box, which was half the total number of strikes. The trial court did not err in finding no prima facie showing of discrimination where the prosecution ultimately accepted a jury with four black women. id: 27785
Updated 2/3/2024The prosecutor’s investigation into one potential black juror did not establish a prima facie case of group discrimination.Defendant argued the trial court erred in finding he had not established a prima facie case of discrimination after the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to strike three of the five black jurors who had been seated. The defense learned that the prosecutor had done a criminal background check on one of the jurors but was unwilling to discuss the issue. However, that fact did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination requiring the prosecutor to state race-neutral reasons for excusing the jurors.id: 26578
Updated 2/1/2024The African American perspective jurors were excused not because of their belief that the system treats African Americans unfairly but because of their bias and sympathy for the defendant.A trial court may not excuse for cause African American prospective jurors solely because of their belief that the criminal justice system treats African Americans unfairly. However, the jurors in this case were excused because their answers during voir dire showed they could not be impartial because of their bias and sympathy for the defendant.id: 27995
Updated 1/31/2024Prosecutor’s for-cause challenge of juror who distrusted police was not presumptively invalid under section 231.7.Defendant argued the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution’s for-cause challenge of a juror who admitted she held police officers to a higher standard of credibility than other officers. Defendant’s argument was based on newly amended Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7. However, the argument fails because that provision applies only to peremptory challenges, not challenges for cause.id: 28076
The prosecutor did not err in excusing a black prospective juror who said the prosecution was “absolutely” required to prove defendant’s guilt.The prosecutor provided a race neutral reason for excluding a black prospective juror who indicated the prosecutor was “absolutely” required to prove the crime. The evidence showed a proper concern that the juror may have required a higher standard of proof than the law requires.id: 24732
The prosecutor properly excused a Hispanic prospective juror who had an associates degree in criminal justice.The prosecution stated a race neutral reason for excusing a female Hispanic prospective juror who had an associates degree in criminal justice but was attending tech school classes at night. It is a common practice to remove law-trained people from the venire. id: 24733
The prosecutor did not commit Batson error by excusing a single mother of two who was late to court. The prosecutor provided a race neutral reason for excusing a Hispanic prospective juror who was a single mother of two who was late to court. This could be seen as a lack of maturity or life experiences. id: 24734
The prosecutor did not commit Batson error by excusing a black prospective juror who had previously voted to acquit the accused in a previous attempted murder case. The prosecutor provided a race neutral reason for excusing a black prospective juror who had previously served on a jury that acquitted a defendant in an attempted murder case, and described the case as an accidental shooting of an armed victim. id: 24735
Prosecutor’s reference to jury selection notes when offering reasons after Batson/Wheeler motion waives work product protection.The prosecutor’s jury selection notes, when referenced by a prosecutor offering a neutral reason for exercising a peremptory strike, are discoverable by the defendant as part of a postconviction writ of habeas corpus discovery.id: 26140
The prosecution did not commit Batson/Wheeler error for excusing a black juror who might have had problems hearing voices on a video, and another who questioned whether the system works properly. Defendant objected on Batson/Wheeler grounds to the peremptory challenges used against black prospective jurors. On appeal, he argued the prosecutor’s reasons for excusing the jurors was pretextual. The first juror was hearing-impaired. While he said he could hear everything the witnesses said if he sat up front, the prosecutor explained his concern was that the juror would not be able to properly discern words and tone on important audio recordings. Another juror questioned whether the justice system “works for the most part” and had a close aunt who went to jail for drug trafficking. The prosecutor provided bona fide race-neutral reasons for excusing the jurors.id: 26092
Where the prosecutor’s two primary reasons for excusing a black prospective juror were sincere, the inclusion of other facts including the juror’s job as an engineer did not establish a Batson/Wheeler violation.The prosecutor excused all four black prospective jurors. Defense counsel objected on Batson/Wheeler grounds and the prosecutor recited reasons justifying the challenges. Defendant argued that a peremptory challenge against one was improper since the prosecutor gave many reasons and some were pretextual. One included the juror’s profession as an engineer. However, the court found the prosecutor stressed two facts that really bothered her about the juror, and her concerns about those facts were sincere. Since the juror’s engineer profession was not one of the primary concerns, there was no Batson/Wheeler violation.id: 26064
The record supported the prosecutor’s reasons for excusing the black prospective jurors and defense counsel accepted the reasons without comment.Defendant was a black man accused of killing a white woman, and the prosecutor excused all three black venire members when selecting jurors and alternates. Defendant argued that when challenged, the trial court failed to make a sincere and reasoned evaluation of the prosecutor’s stated reasons for excusing the prospective jurors in question - instead making a “global finding” that the prosecutor’s reasons were supported in the record, plausible and self-evident. Defense counsel was given a chance to comment and offered no challenge. Justice Liu dissented finding there was no reasoned evaluation of the stated reasons.id: 25696
Prosecutor’s use of six of thirteen juror strikes against black jurors did not give rise to an inference of discriminatory intent for Batson purposes.The prosecutor used five of his first eight peremptory strikes to excuse five of the six black prospective jurors in the jury box. However, these initial strikes did not support an inference of discriminatory intent that required an explanation from the prosecutor where the next four strikes all targeted non-black jurors.id: 25642
Defendant presenting a comparative juror analysis as part of an alleged Batson/Wheeler violation failed to show the seated jurors had a substantially similar combination of responses to the excused jurors.Defendant arguing a Batson motion claimed the prosecutor’s reasons for dismissing the black prospective jurors was pretextual because caucasian jurors who expressed similar views were not excused. However, pretext is established when compared jurors have expressed a substantially similar combination of responses, in all material respects to the excused jurors.id: 25091
<$!639>The facts that no blacks served on a jury in Alameda County did not rebut the race-neutral justifications given for the strikes following the Batson/Wheeler objection.Defendant arguing a Batson claim insisted discrimination must have occurred because it was statistically improbable that no blacks would serve on a jury in Alameda County. However, statistical evidence about the underrepresentation of particular groups on a venire or a jury panel is not sufficient to undermine a trial court’s considered findings at the third step of the Batson/Wheeler analysis.id: 25092
The prosecutor’s use of three of nine peremptory challenges to excuse Black prospective jurors did not establish a prima facie case of race discrimination for Batson purposes.The prosecution’s use of three of nine peremptory challenges to excuse Black prospective jurors did not establish a prima facie case of race discrimination. The prosecutor also provided valid race-neutral reasons for excusing the three potential jurors. The first suffered frustration from earlier juror service where the case resulted in a hung jury. The other two were young and single and therefore lacked life experience. id: 25074
Prosecutor’s mention of the black prospective juror’s interest in amateur magic before challenging him did not show a pretext for discrimination. While explaining his reasons for excluding a black prospective juror, the prosecutor mentioned the juror’s listed hobby - amateur magician. While the reason may have been arbitrary or idiosyncratic, it did not establish that he acted with discriminatory intent, particularly in light of his other legitimate reasons for exercising the challenge. id: 24535
Defendant did not show an inference of racial discrimination where the prosecution challenged four black prospective jurors but two others remained on the panel.Defendant made a Wheeler motion after the prosecutor’s fourth peremptory challenge of a black juror. At the time the motion was heard, two other black prospective jurors remained on the panel. There was no Wheeler error. Defendant argued the two remaining black people were kept on the jury because they were sympathetic to law enforcement. But this argument showed the prosecution was motivated by views rather than race. Moreover, defendant referred to the questionnaires of the excused jurors to justify his claim, but he failed to raise the issue of the questionnaires in the trial court, and could not do so on appeal.id: 21660
There was no Batson/Wheeler error where the prosecutor challenged three black prospective jurors who had family members with mental health issues.Defendant argued the trial court erred by denying her Batson/Wheeler motion after the prosecutor exercised peremptory challenges to excuse three black female prospective jurors who had close family members with mental health issues. However, the record showed the trial court properly credited the prosecutior’s explanations, which were not motivated by race. id: 24131
Stage one Batson inquiry is not moot where the trial court finds no prima facie showing of group bias, but invites the prosecutor to prove race-neutral reasons, which the court determines are legitimate.The prosecutor challenged two of the three black prospective jurors and the defendant raised a Batson/Wheeler objection. The trial court found there was no prima facie showing of group bias (stage one of the inquiry) but allowed the prosecutor to provide reason for the challenges. The court then accepted the reasons as race-neutral (stage three). When an appellate court reviews a Batson/Wheeler issue under these facts, the initial stage one ruling is not moot and the issue may be resolved by reviewing the first stated question of whether the defense failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of discrimination as to either challenge.id: 24123
There was no error in failing to replace the death penalty phase juror with the lone female alternate. It became necessary to replace a sitting juror at the penalty phase. Defendant used a Batson/Wheeler analysis to suggest a departure from the accepted procedure of selecting an alternate was appropriate, and instead, the sole female alternate should have been seated. However, defendant forfeited the error by failing to make the objection in the trial court. Moreover, there was no error in using the random procedure specified in Penal Code section 1089.id: 19736
Any error in finding Batson-Wheeler error by the defense for challenging caucasians, did not require reversal. The trial court found that defense counsel committed a Batson-Wheeler error by using peremptory challenges to excuse caucasian prospective jurors. Assuming, without finding, that the court erred, reversal was not automatic, and was not required here where counsel argued the error (along with the improper threat of sanctions against the defense ) chilled any further exercise of defense peremptories resulting in the seating of objectionable jurors. id: 24020
Defendant forfeits the ability to do a comparative analysis in a Batson/Wheeler challenge if the black juror is excused and the others are questioned later if counsel fails to renew the objection after the questioning.The trial court did not err at the penalty phase retrial by failing to properly evaluate the genuineness of the prosecutor’s reasons for excluding two black prospective jurors. The prosecutor said the jurors were excused because of a lack of supervisory experience, and defense counsel compared that reason to white jurors questioned later who ultimately sat on the jury. However, defendant forfeited the ability to do the comparative analysis by not renewing the Batson motion after the white jurors responded to the questions.id: 23597
The trial court was not required to comment on the prosecutor’s stated reasons for challenging a black juror where it had earlier found no prima facie showing of group discrimination.Defendant objected on Batson/Wheeler grounds after the prosecutor used a peremptory challenge on the only black juror. The court refused to find a prima facie case of discrimination but invited the prosecutor to state his reasons for the challenge on the record if he wished. Contrary to defendant’s claim, this was a first not third-stage Wheeler issue and did not require the trial court to comment on the sincerity of the prosecutor’s stated reasons.id: 23643
There was no Batson error in excusing the black prospective juror who answered the questions in a mechanical and guarded way. Defendant argued the prosecutor committed Batson error by using a peremptory challenge to excuse a black prospective juror. However, the evidence supported the prosecutor’s justifications. The fact that the prospective juror seemed mechanical and guarded showed he might be concealing views that were unsympathetic to the prosecution’s case. The comparative juror analysis was not helpful, and the fact that the prosecutor explored the issue of psychology with the black juror more than with the others was not improper. id: 23704
The prosecutor’s failure to question the excused black jurors about each area of articulated concern did not undermine the conclusion that the race neutral reasons were genuine and did not amount to Batson/Wheeler error. There were four black people in the 60 person venire. Defendant made a Wheeler objection when the prosecutor dismissed the only two black people who had been called to the jury box. The prosecutor later challenged another black person called to the jury box but also indicated he had no intention of excusing the fourth black person who was still in the audience. However, questioning of the three excused jurors showed race-neutral reasons why they would not have been favorable to the prosecution. The prosecutor’s failure to question the prospective jurors about every area of articulated concern did not undermine the conclusions that the race-neutral reasons were genuine. id: 21751
The defense impliedly consented to the reseating of the improperly discharged juror by failing to object to that remedy following the Batson/Wheeler violation.Following a Batson/Wheeler violation, the trial court, with the assent of the complaining party, has discretion to issue orders short of outright dismissal of the remaining jury, including the reseating of improperly discharged jurors. Assent can be found on the basis of implied consent, and in this case the defendant impliedly consented by not objecting to the reseating of the improperly discharged juror.id: 23236
Sample size (two out of four) in prosecutor’s peremptory challenges against prospective black jurors was too small to infer a discriminatory purpose for Batson/ Wheeler.Defendant argued the statistical disparity in the prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges in which two out of four were directed at the only black prospective jurors raised an inference of discriminatory purpose for Batson/Wheeler purposes. However, the size of the sample was too small to support an inference of discriminatory purpose.id: 23248
Prosecutor adequately justified the excusal of two black prospective jurors where one was clinically depressed and the other belonged to liberal organizations.Defendant made a prima facie case of group bias when the prosecution used peremptory challenges for the two black prospective jurors. However, the prosecutor’s subsequent justifications were reasonable where one was affiliated with liberal groups and the other was in therapy for depression. id: 23324
The prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges against the first two (of three) black prospective jurors did not raise an inference of discrimination.Defendant was a black man charged with the capital murder of a white college student after raping her. The prosecutor used peremptory challenges against the first two black prospective jurors seated. The trial court did not err by denying the Batson/Wheeler motion after finding defendant failed to make a prima facie case of discrimination.id: 23314
Exusing one of three black jurors did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination for Batson/Wheeler purposes.The prosecutor exercised his second peremptory challenge at defendant’s capital trial against one of the three black prospective jurors on the 24 member panel. This did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination for Batson/Wheeler purposes. Defense counsel acknowledged the motion was probably too early to succeed, and the prosecutor did not excuse the remaining black jurors.id: 23128
Defense counsel committed Batson/Wheeler error by excusing women to get a more “balanced” jury, and the court did not err by reseating the excused juror. The trial court did not err by granting the prosecutor’s Batson/Wheeler claim where defense counsel admitted he was excusing women in an effort to achieve a more “balanced jury from a gender prospective.” Moreover, the trial court did not thereafter err in reseating the excused juror even though she knew defense counsel had attempted to excuse her, as the jurors were instructed not to be insulted by a challenge.id: 22663
Prosecutor’s use of 10 of his 13 peremptory challenges against women did not establish Batson/Wheeler error. Defendant argued the prosecutor’s use of 10 of his 13 peremptory challenges against women constituted a Batson/Wheeler violation. However, there was no violation where the final jury was comprised of six men and six women, and neither defendant nor the victim were female.id: 22495
Race neutral reasons including sympathy for kids who join gangs and religious prejudice against atheists supported the prosecutor’s peremptory challenge against the black prospective juror.The trial court did not err in finding the defense failed to make a prima facie case of discrimination based on the prosecutor’s use of a peremptory challenge against a single black prospective juror. The record showed several race-neutral reasons for challenging the juror including a statement showing some sympathy for youths who join gangs, the fact that her husband was a postal worker, and the fact that she acknowledged a prejudice against atheists (even though religion was not an issue in the case). id: 22307
The trial court did not commit Batson-Wheeler error by asking the prosecutor a single question about his explanation for challenging three black jurors.Defendant, a black man, was charged with killing two elderly white victims. The prosecutor peremptorily challenged three of the five black prospective jurors and the court found a prima facie case of group bias. The court implicitly found the prosecutor’s explanations for excusing the jurors were credible and race neutral. The court only asked the prosecutor one question during his explanation, but then invited defense counsel to comment, which defense counsel declined. No more was required of the court. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Werdegar found the trial court did not make a sincere and reasoned effort to evaluate the prosecutor’s justifications, and said she would reverse the capital convictions.id: 22058
The prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges against four black prospective jurors did not establish Batson error. The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s Batson/Wheeler motions after the prosecutor excused four black prospective jurors. The prosecutor passed on two of the jurors during several rounds of peremptory challenges before finally excusing them. Moreover, a black woman ultimately served on the jury. Finally, race neutral reasons supported the excusal of each juror in question.id: 22422
Fact that the black prospective juror noted that he was falsely accused in the army was a race-neutral reason that supported the prosecutor’s peremptory challenge. Defendant argued the trial court committed Batson/Wheeler error by challenging a black potential juror. However, the prosecutor provided a proper race neutral reason - that the prospective juror claimed he had been wrongfully accused of something in the army 28 years earlier. The court also noted that, at the time of the challenge, two other black prospective jurors remained in the group of 11.id: 21595
The trial court’s request for a response from the prosecutor after the Batson/Wheeler objection was not a finding that a prima facie case of discrimination had been made. Defendant argued Batson/Wheeler error after the prosecutor used a peremptory challenge to excuse a black prospective juror. The trial court asked the prosecutor for a response. When the prosecutor asked if the judge was requesting reasons, he said the defense had “to make a showing” and that “in this type of case, its important that the record be complete.” The trial court’s statement presupposed the defense had not made a prima facie showing. Because no prima facie showing was made, no third stage analysis was required.id: 21529
The trial court engaged in a sincere and reasoned effort when evaluating the nondiscriminatory justifications provided by the prosecutor who challenged nine prospective jurors.Defendants argued the trial court erred by failing to discharge the jury panel after the prosecutor used peremptory challenges against nine black jurors. In fact, defense counsel made five separate Wheeler motions. The record also showed that one black person served on the jury and another was excused by the defense. The trial court complied with its obligation to engage in a sincere and reasoned effort to evaluate the nondiscriminatory justifications provided by the prosecutor.id: 21754
“People of color” is not a cognizable group for Batson/Wheeler purposes.The prosecutor used early peremptory challenges to excuse Black, Latino and southeast Asian jurors. The trial court did not err as a matter of law in subsequently finding that “people of color” is not a cognizable group for Batson/Wheeler purposes. any error would have been harmless anyway where the record showed legitimate reasons for excusing each of the jurors. Moreover, defendant was not entitled to a comparative analysis of the challenged jurors to others who served on the jury since the issue here involved the first step in the process - determining whether a prima facie case of discrimination had been made.id: 21205
Defendant did not make a prima facie case of group discrimination by simply alleging the prosecutor had improperly used peremptory challenges against three black prospective jurors.Defense counsel raised a Batson/Wheeler objection after the prosecutor used three of her first peremptory challenges on black prospective jurors. However, defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing a prima facie case of group discrimination where he never claimed the prosecutor used her peremptory challenges to strike most or all of the black prospective jurors, or that no black people remained on the panel. id: 20929
There was no Batson/Wheeler violation where the prosecutor used 20 of 23 peremptory challenges against women, because he had earlier accepted two panels with eight women on the jury. The prosecutor exercised 20 of it 23 challenges against women. Defendant was a male charged with the murder of his mother and the mother of his child. The codefendant was also a female. Defendant moved under Batson/Wheeler to dismiss the entire panel claiming discrimination by the prosecutor. However, the trial court did not err in finding no prima facie Batson/Wheeler violation where the prosecutor early in the voir dire process, twice accepted jury panels that included eight women and four men.id: 20586
The trial court did not err by accepting the prosecutors’s justifications following the Batson/Wheeler motion that one black woman was excused because she was late and the other because she was a nursing assistant. he prosecutor used peremptory challenges to excuse two African American females from the jury venire. The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s Batson/Wheeler motion after the trial court accepted the prosecutor’s justification that one of the women was late to court and did not properly follow the court’s instructions, and the other was a nursing assistant, who the prosecutor believed because of prior experience with such people he should excuse.id: 20542
By proffering his reasons for excusing the black juror the prosecutor rendered moot the question whether a prim facie case existed.By requesting the prosecutor to explain his reasons for using peremptory challenges against prospective black jurors, the trial court impliedly found defendant had established a prima facie case of group discrimination for Batson/Wheeler purposes.id: 20403
Defense counsel’s failure to specifically allege Wheeler error regarding the challenge of a prospective Hispanic juror and the failure to secure a ruling prevented review of the issue.Defendant argued the prosecutor committed Wheeler error by using a peremptory challenge to excuse a Hispanic juror. However, it was not clear that defendant made a Wheeler motion regarding the excusal of the Hispanic juror. Counsel’s comment may have been intended to bolster his argument that the prosecutor was improperly challenging black jurors. Assuming he made a specific Wheeler objection, the issue was nevertheless forfeited due to counsel’s failure to press the court for a ruling as the court addressed the other pending Wheeler motions.id: 20402
The failure to object to the reseating of the juror as a remedy for the Batson/Wheeler violation forfeited the issue on appeal. The trial court granted defendant’s Batson/Wheeler motion after the prosecutor challenged a Hispanic juror. As a remedy, the court reseated the juror. On appeal, defendants argued the court erred by failing to dismiss the entire jury venire. However, the failure to object to the reseating of the juror at trial forfeited the issue on appeal.id: 20319
Following remand on a Batson/Wheeler issue to allow the prosecutor to justify the excusal of minority jurors, defendant was not entitled to be represented by his original lawyer, question the prosecutor under oath or see his notes.Defendant raised a Batson/Wheeler challenge on his appeal. The matter was remanded to allow the prosecutor to state the reasons for challenging the minority jurors and to allow the trial court to then determine whether the peremptory challenges were discriminatory. Defendant argued the hearing on remand was unfair. However, contrary to his claim, he was not entitled 1) to be represented by the attorney who was present for the original voir dire, 2) to question the prosecutor under oath, or 3) production of the prosecutor’s notes.id: 20318
The trial court did not err in denying the Batson/Wheeler motion where the prosecutor excused nine black jurors for race neutral reasons and the seated jury had six black people.The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s Batson/Wheeler motion after the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to excuse nine black prospective jurors. The final jury had six black people, one Hispanic and one person who described himself as “Filipino Afro.” The prosecutor provided race neutral reasons for excusing the other jurors.id: 20320
There was no Batson/Wheeler violation where the prosecutor challenged the sole black prospective juror who, as a pastor, was likely to forgive people.The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s Batson/Wheeler motion after the prosecutor discharged the only black juror on the panel. The prosecutor argued the juror, a minister, was in the forgiveness business and the evidence supported the court’s finding that the explanation was race neutral.id: 20321
A Caucasian woman married to a Hispanic man was not a member of a cognizable group under Batson/Wheeler.A Caucasian juror who was married to a Hispanic man and used his surname was not part of a cognizable class for Batson/Wheeler purposes.id: 20435
Evidence supported the prosecutor’s stated reasons in challenging the black prospective juror where she was volatile, gave tenuous answers to questions and stated a need to be with her teenage daughter.The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s Batson/Wheeler motion after the prosecutor used a peremptory challenge against a black juror. The trial court accepted the prosecutor’s reliance on the prospective juror’s tenuous responses to the questions, her insistence on the need to be at home with her 16 year-old daughter, and her questionable ability to handle a complex case. The court’s finding that the stated reasons were not pretextual was supported by substantial evidence.id: 20473
Absence of juror questionnaires in the appellate record did not preclude Batson-Wheeler review where the court found no prima facie case of bias was made and the prosecutor's reasons for excusing jurors was irrelevant.Defendant argued a due process violation occurred where the appellate record did not contain juror questionnaires
necessary to assist with a Batson-Wheeler claim. However, since the court ruled defendant failed to show a prima facie case of group discrimination, the prosecution's reasons for challenging the African American jurors, and hence the questionnaires were irrelevant.id: 19537
The defense did not make a prima facie case of group bias by pointing out the only two African Americans in the jury box were excused. The prosecutor used peremptory challenges to strike the only two African American potential jurors. The court expressed
uncertainty about whether a prima facie case of group bias had been established. Defense counsel pointed out there were no other African Americans in the jury box and both excused jurors said they could be fair. This showing fell short of establishing a prima facie case for Batson-Wheeler purposes.id: 19536
There was no Batson/Wheeler violation where the prosecutor justified the peremptory challenges of black jurors by referring to their skeptical attitudes toward the criminal justice system.The prosecutor excused several black potential jurors. In response to the Batson/Wheeler motion, he justified the peremptory challenges in part by referring to the jurors' skeptical attitudes towards the criminal justice system. The court rejected the defense claim that skepticism toward the criminal justice system is so prevalent among black people that it should be considered a proxy for race and that, as a result, peremptory challenges based on such an attitude should be deemed discriminatory.id: 20089
Where the trial court faced with a Batson/Wheeler motion finds a prima facie case of bias has not been made, a request for explanations does not convert it into a third stage case.
Defendant objected on Batson/Wheeler grounds when the prosecutor used peremptory challenges against three black jurors. The trial court essentially found defendant did not make a prima facie case of group bias, but asked for the prosecutor's reasons. The court refused to engage in a comparative juror analysis since this was a "first stage Batson/Wheeler case where the trial court found no prima facie case had been made. If a court makes this finding, the request for explanations does not convert it from a first stage case to a third stage case where a comparative analysis might be appropriate.id: 20079
Defendant failed to show Ventura county's failure to enforce more vigorously its jury selection program resulted in the systematic exclusion of Hispanics.Defendant argued that although Hispanics account for 18% of all adult persons living in Ventura, he was denied a representative jury since a much smaller percentage of Hispanics actually reported for jury duty on two consecutive sample panels examined by him prior to trial. Defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of underrepresentation. The court found that use of Hispanic surnames, without further verification, was too imprecise a method on which to base a claim of systematic exclusion, and there was no underrepresentation in the instant case where defendant's jury was comprised of 25% Hispanics. Finally, the Court held that defendant's statistical showing was based upon an inadequate sample.id: 12600
Mere statistical evidence of disparity failed to constitute a prima facie showing of cross-section venire violation.Because of the difficulty in obtaining more accurate figures for jury eligibility, the defendant can present a prima facie case by showing through the use of total population figures a significant underrepresentation of a cognizable class. However, the defendant must identify some aspect of the county's jury selection criteria that is: 1) the probable cause of the disparity, and 2) constitutionally impermissible. Defendant's mere statistical evidence of disparity failed to make a prima facie showing of cross-section venue violation.id: 12609
Court did not err in finding defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of group bias where two of three black prospective jurors were excluded by the prosecution.There were three black jurors on the initial panel. The prosecutor used peremptory challenges to exclude two of the three. Both of the excluded prospective jurors had family members who had had negative experiences with law enforcement. In addition, one of the prospective juror's responses were tentative and low-keyed. The trial court did not err in finding defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of group bias and in denying the <U>Wheeler</U> motion.id: 12591
Supreme Court presumes correctness of state court's Batson, finding that challenges to jurors were not raced-based.The state prosecutor explained that he peremptorily challenged two black jurors because of their long unkempt hair and beards and because one juror had a shotgun pointed at him during a robbery, and would not be inclined to believe a robbery could occur without a gun. In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court held that the state court's factual finding was entitled to a presumption of correctness, and the prosecutor's race-neutral explanation was sufficient to uphold the state court's determination that the prosecutor was not motivated by a racially discriminatory intent. Dissenting, Justices Stevens and Breyer opined that, because the state trial judge found the defendant failed to make a prima facie case of discrimination and the prosecutor merely volunteered his explanations, there was no specific state factual finding, and the federal court could find the prosecutor's explanation pretextual as a matter of law.id: 12617
Defense counsel waived the right to argue federal constitutional error in the Wheeler motion by not objecting on federal grounds.Defendant argued the trial court erred by applying an erroneous legal standard when ruling on his <i>Wheeler</i> motion (to dismiss the jury venire.) In <i>Wade v. Terhune</i> (2000) 20 2F.3d 1190, the Ninth Circuit held the "strong likelihood" of discrimination to establish a prima facie case was too demanding and the appropriate test was that raised in <i>Batson</i>, which requires that the defendant "raise an inference" of a discriminatory purpose. However, trial counsel waived the issue by failing to object on federal as well as state grounds. In any event, the argument was not persuasive since the record showed ample reasons for dismissing the Hispanic jurors and there was no "reasonable inference" of a discriminatory purpose.id: 15938
Prosecutor gave genuine race-neutral reasons for excusing black prospective jurors.The record supported the trial court's conclusion that the prosecutor offered genuine race-neutral reasons for excusing the black prospective jurors. One person was excused because of her opinion that the system is biased against young black males. Another was excused after expressing a view that crack cocaine should be legalized. The third was excused after she gave evasive answers regarding her son's involvement in the criminal justice system.id: 19992
No comparative juror analysis is required for a first stage Batson/Wheeler question as to whether defendant made a prima facie case.Miller-El v. Dretke (2005) 545 U.S. 231, does not require a comparative juror analysis in a first stage Batson/Wheeler case, that is regarding the finding as to whether defendant made a prima facie case of group discrimination.id: 19702
Defendant forfeited claim of comparative juror analysis in the Batson/Wheeler issue where he first raised the claim in his reply brief. Defendant forfeited his claim that the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges should be subjected to a comparative
juror analysis, because he raised the issue for the first time in his reply brief.id: 19713
There was no Wheeler violation in light of the prosecutor's stated reasons for challenging the four black prospective jurors including the nonverbal conduct during questioning. Defendant argued the prosecutor committed Wheeler error by using
peremptory challenges to exclude four black prospective jurors even though the sworn jury contained one black juror and one black alternate. The prosecutor justified the challenges by
suggesting the responses from the challenged jurors showed a lack of willingness to impose the death penalty. Defendant argued a comparison of the responses to those of other jurors not
excused illustrates the pretext. However, nothing in the questionnaires or voir dire responses showed a striking similarity to the responses of the challenged jurors. Moreover, the court noted it was not relying on the responses but on the nonverbal behavior on which the prosecutor relied and these observations could not be reviewed.id: 19676
Comparative juror analysis is not required in a first stage Wheeler-Batson case.The prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to excuse two out of the three black women on the panel did not create a prima facie case of discrimination. The defense failed to make a
prima facie case of discrimination after the prosecutor separately excused two Filipino-American prospective jurors since the record failed to show how many Filipinos were in the venire and not challenged. Contrary to defendant's claim, a comparative juror analysis is not required in a "first
stage" Wheeler-Batson case where the prosecutor has not stated reasons for the peremptory challenges.id: 19456
The trial court did not err by requiring explanations for only two of the three prospective jurors who were the subject of the Batson-Wheeler motion. Defendant made a single Batson-Wheeler motion regarding the prosecutor's challenge against three black jurors. The trial court did not err in requiring explanations for only two of the three prospective jurors after having determined the facts did not support an inference of discrimination against the third.id: 19445
Prosecutor's reference to prospective jurors looks and gestures was not improper when responding to Batson-Wheeler challenge. The prosecutor referred to the prospective juror's body language when attempting to rebut the prima facie showing of group bias. Defendant argued the explanation was too vague. However, challenges based on "bare looks" and gestures are race neutral and not improper. Moreover, the fact that the prosecutor had
passed several times before making the peremptory challenges supported a claim that the challenge was based on juror conduct rather than race.id: 19446
The trial court's failure to retain juror questionnaires did not deny a defendant challenging the denial of a Batson/Wheeler motion his right to an adequate record on appeal.On appeal, defendant challenged the denial of the Batson-Wheeler motion. He argued the failure of the trial court to retain the questionnaires of all prospective jurors denied him of his due process right to an adequate appellate record. Notwithstanding that the U.S. Supreme Court authorized a comparative juror analysis for the first time on appeal, (Miller-El v. Dretke (2005) 545 U.S. 231) the California Supreme Court has not mandated such a procedure. Moreover, the existing record of dialogue in the reporter's transcript, and salient quotes in the
clerk's transcript was sufficient to permit review. Moreover, a comparative analysis shows the record supported the trial court's ruling as the black jurors excused showed a bias toward police that the seated jurors (which included two blacks) did not show.id: 19389
The trial court had no sua sponte duty to reexamine earlier rulings on Batson/Wheeler motions once it determined a prima facie case has been made as to one juror. The trial court did not err in determining a prima facie case of group discrimination had not been established after the prosecutor challenged a Hispanic prospective juror who
expressed negative feelings about the police. The fact that the prosecutor later challenged another Hispanic juror did not change the result since a court has no sua sponte duty to
reexamine rulings on a previous Batson/Wheeler motion once it determines a prima facie case has been made as to another juror. The correctness of the initial decision is determined at the time it was made regardless of later events.id: 19395
The trial court did not err in finding defendant had not established a case of group bias during jury selection even though the prosecutor used three peremptory challenges on
Hispanics where numerous others remained on the panel.Defendant argued the prosecutor's exercise of three peremptory challenges, all of Hispanic persons, established a prima facie case of group bias for Batson/Wheeler purposes. However, the statistical circumstances of the prosecution's peremptory challenges were not sufficient to raise an inference of
discriminatory purpose where numerous Hispanic individuals remained on the panel, and at the time of the motion, two Hispanic potential jurors were in the jury box.id: 19281
A prosecutor may excuse a prospective minority juror who expresses a biased viewpoint even if that attitude is commonly held in his or her community.Defendants argued that it is unconstitutional to exercise peremptory challenges against prospective jurors because they harbor views gleaned from their individual experiences as black persons or carry attitudes representing viewpoints that are held more widely in the black community. However, a prosecutor does not offend Batson or Wheeler when it excuses prospective jurors who have shown orally or in writing (regardless of the social explanation) that they personally harbor biased views.id: 19245
A comparative analysis when evaluating a prosecutor's reasons for excusing minority jurors requires that the excused jurors be similarly situated.Defendants sought to show the pretextual nature of the prosecutor's excusal of black prospective jurors by
comparing their questionnaires and voir dire responses with those of others the prosecutor did not challenge. There was disagreement among several jurors about whether Rodney King's case where a jury acquitted white police officers was treated differently that Reginald Denny's where black defendants were convicted of assaulting a white man after the King verdict. However, a side-by-side comparison of the prospective jurors in question showed they were not similarly situated.id: 19246
Black jurors who had a sympathy for the defendant were properly excused. Following defendant's Wheeler, and the court's finding of a prima facie case, the prosecutor justified his peremptory challenges against three black females by concluding they expressed sympathy for the black defendant. The prosecutor's notes showed that he also used "sympathy for defendant" as shorthand for bias in favor of the defense. The record supported the trial court's finding that the prosecutor excused the potential jurors for race neutral reasons even though he did not properly articulate the reasons when called to do so weeks or months after their individual voir dire.id: 19228
The record did not show the prosecutor deliberately used peremptory challenges to exclude Jews from the capital case.Petitioner argued the prosecutor deliberately and unconstitutionally used peremptory challenges to exclude Jewish prospective jurors in the capital case. However, the evidence presented at the hearing on the matter did not support the claim that there was a policy of excluding Jews. The record showed that as to two jurors, the prosecutor downgraded their rating at some time between voir dire and the challenge procedure (the "big
spin"), but if the alleged policy existed, the jurors would have started with a zero rating. Another juror had been rated undesirable by the prosecutor for reasons unrelated to her religion.id: 19078
Comparative analysis of challenged black juror and nonchallenged white juror showed their noted experiences with police were different since the former described police willingness to lie.Defendant argued the court erred in accepting the prosecutor's
justification for his peremptory challenge of a black juror. He argued the justification based on the juror's negative experience with police was a pretext since a white juror who was not challenged described a similar situation. However, assuming a comparative juror analysis can be done for the first time on appeal, the jurors' experiences were different since the black juror's claim involved the willingness of police to lie.id: 19066
Once the court finds a prima facie case of group bias, it need not require the prosecutor to justify earlier challenges of members of that group for which a Wheeler motion had been denied. When the trial court determines that a defendant has made a
prima facie showing that a particular prospective juror has been challenged because of a group bias, it need not ask the prosecutor to justify his challenges to other prospective jurors of the same group for which the Batson/Wheeler motion had been denied.id: 19067
There was no showing that the reasons the prosecutor used to justify the peremptory challenges against two Jewish prospective jurors were pretextual.Defendant argued Wheeler error and claimed the prosecutor's peremptory challenges against Jewish prospective jurors were mere pretexts. However, the record does not support the claim in light of the other stated reasons to excuse the jurors showing they were unfavorable to the prosecution. Moreover, a comparison of the two challenged prospective jurors with the seated jurors does not show sufficient similarity to establish the existence of a pretext. Because religious affiliation only arose in the context of specific questioning, there may have been other Jewish people who served on the jury. There was no showing of purposeful discrimination against Jewish prospective jurors.id: 18758
Trial court's use of language from the Wheeler opinion did not show the prosecutor's peremptory challenges were motivated in part by group bias.Defendant argued the trial court applied an incorrect standard in denying defendant's Wheeler motion. He claimed the court determined that group bias played a part in the prosecutor's decision but was not the sole reason motivating the challenges. However, that the court used language from Wheeler in denying defendant's motion did not show the prosecutor was motivated in part by group bias. The court's statement simply reflected its finding that defendant did not establish that the peremptory challenges in question were motivated by group bias.id: 18759
Defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of group bias for Wheeler purposes where the prosecutor challenged one of the two African-American prospective jurors.The prosecutor challenged one of two African-Americans from the panel, and the other one ultimately served on the jury. The challenged juror's remarks showed that she lacked trust in the justice system and its treatment of African-American defendants. Defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of group bias.id: 18727
The exclusion of two African-Americans (while two others were retained) failed to raise an inference of racial discrimination for Wheeler purposes.The trial court properly found defendant failed to make a prima facie case of racial bias motivating the prosecutor's challenges to two African-American jurors where two others were retained.id: 18748
Prosecutor's reference to the African-American juror's Catholicism was not a pretext to justify the challenge.The prosecutor used a peremptory challenge to exclude an African-American juror. Defense counsel raised a Wheeler objection, and the prosecutor explained the challenge was race neutral and a product of other things including the juror's Catholicism. Defendant responded the reasons stated were pretextual and noted the prosecutor did not challenge other Catholics. However, the prosecutor did rely on additional factors in excusing the black Catholics. Moreover, a review of the Catholic jurors who remained on the jury showed reasons the prosecutors would keep them including ties to law enforcement.id: 18749
Evidence supported the denial of the Wheeler motions where the African-American jurors who were excused were against the death penalty and five others sat on the jury.Substantial evidence supported the trial court's denial of defendant's Wheeler motions after the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to excuse several African-Americans from the capital jury. At least three of the women that were excused indicated that they were skeptical about the death penalty. The record also showed that one of the prospective jurors had shown hostility to the prosecutor. Moreover, five of the 12 seated jurors were African-American. Finally, contrary to defendant's claims, white jurors who were not excused, were not similarly situated to any of the African-Americans struck by the prosecutor.id: 18635
The trial court did not err by ordering the attorneys not to violate Wheeler during voir dire.Defendant argued the trial court's pretrial order not to violate Wheeler (People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258) contained an implicit threat to impose monetary sanctions if counsel wrongly challenged venire members. He argued the order created a conflict of interest which might cause defense counsel to be less zealous in representing him. However, the possibility of monetary sanctions was not a serious impediment to defendant's right to zealous representation.id: 18376
While Black women are a cognizable class for Batson/Wheeler purposes, the excusal of all three from the panel was upheld where the record showed race neutral grounds for the challenges.Defendant claimed a Wheeler violation after the prosecutor used peremptory challenges on all three African-American women on the panel. The trial court found the defense did not make a prima facie case of discrimination since three African-American males were selected as jurors. While Black women are a cognizable class for Wheeler/Batson purposes, the record shows the jurors may have been reasonably challenged for race-neutral reasons. One person was a therapist, who may have had difficulty setting aside her expertise in evaluating the evidence. Another was a claims adjuster who assisted defense attorneys in preparing for litigation, and may have been overly defense-oriented.id: 18348
By saying "submit," defense counsel implicitly consented to the reseating of a juror as a remedy for a Batson-Wheeler violation.Defendant argued the trial court prejudicially erred by reseating a juror (rather than dismissing the entire venire) as a remedy for a Batson-Wheeler violation without defendant's consent. However, defense counsel implicitly consented to the alternative remedy where counsel simply said "submit" when the court proposed the procedure.id: 18262
Failure to make Wheeler objection and to comment on the prosecutor's volunteered reasons for excusing jurors constituted a waiver of the issue on appeal.Defendant argued the prosecutor at his capital trial committed Batson-Wheeler error by challenging several African-American jurors. Defense counsel never raised such an objection at trial. The prosecutor, on his own initiative, gave reasons for excusing the jurors, and defense counsel remained silent or declined the court's invitation to comment on the prosecutor's reasons waived the issue. Counsel may have remained silent because there was no basis for a Wheeler claim, or because they also may have found one or more of the challenged jurors to be objectionable.id: 18233
The court did not err in denying defendant's Wheeler motion where the excused black juror had criminal acquaintances and slept through most of the voir dire.The trial court did not err in denying defendant's Wheeler motion since defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination. The black prospective juror who was challenged by the prosecutor was acquainted with criminals, disfavored the death and life without parole options, and slept through most of the voir dire.id: 17990
The trial court did not err in refusing to find a prima facie case of group bias where the prosecutor used four of 14 peremptory challenges against Blacks and four were ultimately seated on the jury.The prosecutor used three of her first seven challenges against African-Americans but only one out the next seven. After the fourth peremptory challenge, she had used four of ten against African-Americans, but ultimately only four of 14. The final jury had three African-Americans, and another was an alternate. Two defendants and the victims were African-American. The trial court did not err in refusing to find a prima facie case of group bias.id: 17792
Loss of juror questionnaires did not prejudice defendant's ability to appeal the ruling on the Wheeler-Batson claim.Defendant argued the loss of juror questionnaires prejudiced his ability to obtain meaningful appellate review of the trial court's ruling relating to his Wheeler-Batson claim. However, reversal was not required. First, the prosecutor orally specified which jurors were the subject of the discussion. Next, defense counsel did not challenge on the record the prosecutor's representation of the contents of the questionnaires that led her to excuse the jurors in question. Finally, the lost ability to compare the voir dire of the jurors who were excused, from those seated was insignificant since courts do not engage in comparative juror analysis for the first time on appeal.id: 17556
Prosecutors reasons for excluding the two Hispanic jurors - lack of education and not paying attention - were not contradicted by any evidence in the record.The prosecutor used peremptory challenges to excuse two Hispanics from a venire which resulted in 12 white jurors convicting two Hispanic defendants of murder. The defense raised a Wheeler objection. The first juror was excused because she was a customer service representative who was not highly educated and not paying attention. The second was a youth counselor who the prosecutor believed might be sympathetic to the young defendants. The prosecutor's reasons for excusing the jurors were plausible and not contradicted by any evidence in the trial record. Since the trial court's findings on this issue are entitled to great deference, the Court of Appeal erroneously reversed the judgments on that basis.id: 17545
Wheeler's procedure of evaluating the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges did not violate the federal standard and the courts need not engage in comparative juror analysis for the first time on appeal.Defendant argued California's procedure to object to the other party's use of peremptory challenges as set forth in People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258, violated the federal standard established in Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79. First, the terms "strong likelihood" and "reasonable inference" used in Wheeler to describe the necessary showing of group bias, refer to the same test used in Batson. In both cases, the objector must show it is more likely than not the other party's challenges, if unexplained were based on impermissible group bias. Next, Batson does not require state reviewing courts to engage in comparative juror analysis for the first time on appeal. Finally, defendant did not make the necessary showing by simply establishing that the prosecutor challenged all three African-Americans on the panel. While the statistic was troubling it did not require reversal of the trial court's ruling.id: 17433
Defendant waived any assertion of error regarding his Wheeler motion by failing to make a record as to the race of the excused jurors.The record did not identify which of the prosecutor's six peremptory challenges were at issue in defendant's Wheeler motion. Neither did the record indicate the race of any of the jurors. Without showing that there were no race-neutral grounds for challenging the Black and Hispanic jurors at issue in the Wheeler motion, defendant cannot demonstrate error. He must identify which of the challenged jurors were Black or Hispanic and must show there were no race-neutral grounds for excluding them.id: 17258
Defendant lacked standing to challenge the denial of the prosecutor's Wheeler motion.The prosecutor made a Wheeler motion based upon defendant's exercise of peremptory challenges against white males. The court found defendant exercised his challenges in a discriminatory fashion. However, the court denied the motion in the interest of proceeding with trial. On appeal, defendant argued that once the court found the challenges were a product of group bias, it was required to grant the Wheeler motion and dismiss the entire jury panel and start voir dire with a new venire. However, defendant lacked standing to assert the error since he suffered no injury as he was tried by a jury of his own choosing.id: 17259
Defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of group bias where three African-American women were excused from the jury but two more remained on the panel. Defendant argued the prosecutor committed Wheeler error by excusing three African-American women from the jury. However, the trial court reviewed the juror questionnaires and observed their demeanor when questioned abut their possible reluctance in imposing the death penalty. Since a number of African-American women were left on the jury, the record supported the court's ruling that defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of group bias. id: 17080
A trial judge has options other than dismissal of the entire venire following a Wheeler violation.Defense counsel, representing a black defendant, exhibited group bias in exercising his peremptory challenges to exclude white male prospective jurors, thereby violating the state's right to a representative and impartial jury. Contrary to defendant's claim, the trial court had discretion to consider and impose remedies or sanctions short of outright dismissal of the entire jury venire. The trial court did not err by rejecting defendant's motion to dismiss the remaining jury venire in favor of monetary sanctions.id: 16786
Court does not engage in a comparative analysis when evaluating the sufficiency of a prosecutor's reasons for dismissing minority jurors.Defendant argued that several of the prosecutor's explanations for excusing African Americans from the jury were inconsistent with his actions in accepting various non-African Americans who gave similar voir dire responses as prospective jurors. However, in evaluating the sufficiency of a prosecutor's explanations, a reviewing court will not engage in such a comparative analysis regarding persons the prosecutor accepted.id: 15937
Prosecutor did not err in using a peremptory challenge to remove a Black juror because she was a Jehovah's Witness.Defendant argued the prosecutor improperly exercised a peremptory challenge to remove a potential Black juror because she was a Jehovah's Witness. The juror had stated that while she could not serve on a capital jury, she would have no problem with a case like this, involving petty theft with a prior. The prosecutor's perception that the juror's religious views might render her uncomfortable with sitting in judgment of a fellow human being was a specific bias related to the individual's suitability for jury service. The challenge of a juror on the basis of the juror's relevant personal values is not improper even though those views may be founded in the juror's religious beliefs.id: 15941
Remand hearing to determine whether peremptory challenges were race neutral under Wheeler need not be conducted by original trial judge if reasons given are verifiable.When conducting a limited remand hearing on whether an attorney's reasons for exercising peremptory challenges are race neutral under <i>Wheeler/Batson</i>, it is not mandatory for the original judge to conduct the hearing when the reasons given are objectively verifiable.id: 15942
Wheeler motion was properly denied where excusal of one of two Black jurors, without more, did not constitute a prima facie case of group bias.The prosecutor exercised a peremptory challenge to excuse one of two Black jurors. The excusal of one Black juror did not constitute excusal of all or most members of a group. The trial court correctly ruled the defense failed to establish a prima facie case of group discrimination. Since no prima facie case was made, the prosecutor was not required to justify the peremptory challenge. Nevertheless, in looking at the record race-neutral reasons for the challenge existed. First, the other Black served on the jury. Next, the challenged juror gave an equivocal response when asked if she could remain open-minded.id: 15944
Court properly accepted the prosecutor's race-neutral explanations for exercising peremptory challenges against Hispanic venirepersons including the fact that two of them had limited life experiences.The prosecutor exercised peremptory challenges against four Hispanic venirepersons. The prosecutor justified two of the challenges because the people were young, single and without life experiences. Limited life experience is a race-neutral explanation and the evidence supported the explanation. The third juror refused to answer most of the questions on the questionnaire despite the court's instructions and the court had to prod her to answer certain basic questions. The fourth juror laughed at an inappropriate time during voir dire and pronounced that he had voted not guilty in a prior drunk driving trial after being told not to disclose the results. These reasons given to support the challenges were race-neutral and the court was correct in accepting the explanations as bona fide justifications.id: 12594
Court's finding of a prima facie showing as to one Wheeler motion was not binding on the court with regard to the remaining Wheeler motions.During jury selection the defendant made five separate <i>Wheeler</i> motions. The trial court's finding of a prima facie showing as to the second <i>Wheeler</i> motion was not binding on the trial court with regard to the remaining motions. Once a prima facie showing has been refuted it is incumbent upon the moving party to make a new prima facie showing with regard to any subsequent <i>Wheeler</i> motion pertaining to different jurors of the identified group from the venire.id: 12595
Defendant did not make a prima facie showing of group discrimination by stating the excused Hispanic jurors were otherwise heterogeneous.During voir dire the prosecutor peremptorily challenged all four Spanish surnamed persons. Defendant argued the trial court should have found he made a prima facie showing of group discrimination because aside from their ethnicity, the four excused jurors were otherwise as heterogeneous as the community as a whole. However, such a comparison is highly speculative and less reliable than the determination made by the trial judge who witnessed the process by which the defendant's jury was selected.id: 12596
Defendant failed to demonstrate blacks were systematically excluded based on the disparity in granting hardship deferrals.Defendant argued that blacks were systematically excluded from the jury selection process in Contra Costa County in that they qualified more easily for hardship deferrals given their lower income and lack of transportation to the courthouse in Martinez. However, defendant failed to identify any criterion used in the jury selection process that was arguably impermissible or was applied in an impermissible manner, and while he speculated that hardship deferrals were involved he neither demonstrated that they caused the disparity nor established that the basis on which they were granted was constitutionally impermissible.id: 12597
Defendant failed to establish that jurors excluded on hardship grounds constitute a cognizable class.Defendant argued that the trial court's denial of his motion for payment of juror fees in excess of the statutory daily fee denied him the right to a jury selected from a representative cross-section of the community. However, such claims are analyzed by ascertaining whether a cognizable class has been excluded. Defendant did not establish that persons excluded on hardship grounds constituted a cognizable class.id: 12598
Defendant failed to establish his threshold Wheeler burden as he raised the motion after the prosecutor excused the second of five black potential jurors.Defense counsel brought a <i>Wheeler</i> motion after the prosecutor used a peremptory challenge to excuse the second of five black prospective jurors on the panel. A third black juror had been excused by the defense. Defendant argued this second juror was excused because of her race and given the fact that she was in law enforcement, as a probation officer, she would have been a good juror. However, defendant failed to establish his threshold <i>Wheeler</i> burden by showing a strong likelihood the prosecution used peremptory challenges to excuse prospective jurors because of group bias. Thus, the burden never shifted to the prosecution to justify its peremptory challenges.id: 12599
Defendant failed to show persons over 70 years old were a cognizable group within the meaning of the representative cross-section rule.Defendant argued the systematic exclusion of persons aged 70 and older from the jury pool violated his constitutional right to a jury drawn from a representative cross-section of the community. However, the motion was properly denied because the defendant did not show the group allegedly excluded was a distinctive or cognizable group within the meaning of the representative cross-section rule.id: 12601
Defendant's Wheeler motion was untimely where it was made after the jury and alternates had been sworn and the jury venire had been dismissed.Defendant argued the court erred in denying his <i>Wheeler</i> motion because the prosecution impermissibly used its peremptory challenges to excuse two Hispanic surnamed jurors. However, the first time an objection under <i>Wheeler</i> appeared on the record was when defense counsel made his motion after the jury and alternates had been sworn and the jury venire had been dismissed. The motion was properly denied as untimely. Even if the motion had been timely raised defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination where both Hispanic surnamed jurors worked in social services or caregiving fields and the prosecutor had excused several other jurors with occupations in similar fields.id: 12602
Defense failed to make a prima facie case of group bias where the defendants and challenged jurors were African-American and the questionnaires provided no reason to think the jurors could not be fair.The defendants were two African-American men charged in the shooting of two police officers. The prosecutor used peremptory challenges to strike two African-American jurors. The only basis for establishing a prima facie case by the defense were that the defendants and jurors were African-American, and the juror questionnaires did not show a reason they would not be suitable as jurors. The defense failed to establish a strong likelihood that the jurors were challenged because of their group association.id: 12603
Excluding the only black prospective juror did not constitute prima facie evidence of group bias.The prosecutor challenged the sole African-American prospective juror. His questioning of that juror while brief, was not perfunctory nor unusually limited when compared with his questioning of other members of the panel. The fact that defendant was a member of the same group as the excluded juror was relevant, but unlike other decisions, there was no victim of a different racial or ethnic group to which the other jurors belonged. Defendant's showing was insufficient to constitute a prima facie indication of group bias.id: 12604
Exclusion of disproportionate numbers of minority jurors did not per se make out a prima facie case of group bias.The record revealed the existence of specific bias for each of the eight challenged jurors. The exclusion of disproportionate numbers of minority jurors did not per se make out a prima facia case of group bias and automatically shift the burden of justification to the prosecution. Moreover, the number of challenges to a specific group alone (blacks or hispanics) did not establish a violation of the Wheeler rule.id: 12605
People with strong reservation about the death penalty do not constitute a cognizable group for Wheeler purposes.The prosecutor did not improperly use peremptory challenges to remove prospective jurors who had expressed reservations about the death penalty because people with death penalty scruples do not constitute a cognizable group under <i>Wheeler</i>.id: 12610
Prosecutor's mistake constituted a reason justifying the challenge of the African-American juror where the record did not show the court failed to consider the genuineness of the explanation.Defendant argued the trial court erred in denying his <i>Wheeler</i> motion after the prosecutor excused an African-American juror. When the prosecutor was called upon to justify the peremptory challenge he stated that he erred in excusing the juror and that he really had wanted her to serve on the jury. A mistake is a reason that is a coherent explanation for a peremptory challenge. Moreover, nothing in the record suggests the trial court failed to make the requisite sincere and reasoned determination regarding the genuineness of the prosecutor's explanation for challenging the prospective juror.id: 12612
Ruling on a Wheeler motion will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence rather than the abuse of discretion standard of review.When the moving party has made a prima facie showing of group bias in the exercise of peremptory challenges, and the opposing party has offered an explanation for the challenges which on its face is free of group bias, the issue presented to the court is one of fact. Accordingly, its ruling on the motion will be upheld on appeal if it was supported by substantial evidence, unless the record indicates that the trial court misunderstood the nature of its obligations under <i>Wheeler</i>, or otherwise based its ruling on something other than a resolution of that factual issue.id: 12613
Supreme Court gives prosecutor standing to object to defendant's racially-motivated peremptory challenges.In applying <i>Batson v. Kentucky</i>, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) to defendants, the Supreme Court held that the state had standing to assert the equal protection rights of black prospective jurors who were peremptorily challenged by defendants. The state has standing because it has an interest in maintaining the integrity of the judicial process, and because jurors who are discriminated against face formidable obstacles in vindicating their own equal protection rights. Accordingly, if the defendant exercises his peremptory challenges based on racial stereotypes, the prosecutor may object to those challenges, and prevent jurors from being stricken from the jury.id: 12614
The record supported denial of the Wheeler motion where six of the seven challenged jurors had ties to the health profession.The trial court did not explain its reasons for finding the defense failed to establish a prima facie case of group bias, and the prosecutor's reasons for exercising challenges against the subject jurors were not apparent from the record. However, a thorough review of the record shows a common thread running through all of the prosecutor's challenges - not just those of jurors belonging to a cognizable class. Six of the seven jurors peremptorily challenged by those the prosecutor were either employed in the health field or had spouses employed in the profession. Since this common characteristic may have been the basis for the prosecutor's challenges, it was sufficient to sustain the trial court's ruling on review.id: 12619
Trial court did not impliedly find systematic exclusion after defense counsel raised the issue, it merely gave the prosecutor a chance to be heard.During jury selection, defense counsel raised the point of systematic exclusion. The trial court then asked the prosecutor, Do you wish to be heard, counsel? The prosecutor then offered no justification for the peremptory challenges, but addressed only the question of whether a prima facie showing had been made. If the court found a prima facie showing of systematic exclusion had been made the prosecutor would have to show the jurors were legitimately excused. However, the court did not impliedly make such a prima facie finding, it merely gave the prosecutor a chance to be heard.id: 12620
Wheeler motion made after the jury is sworn is untimely.A motion for mistrial based on a claim of discriminatory use of peremptory challenges, first asserted after the jury has been sworn, is too late.id: 12621
Allowing prosecutor to respond to defendant's allegation of group bias did not require that the prosecutor rebut such allegations.Defendant objected that the prosecutor was exercising peremptory challenges based on group bias after 5 of 6 blacks and 21 of 60 whites were excluded. The court asked the prosecutor to respond and then denied the motion. In asking the prosecutor to respond the court did not call upon him to explain his challenges and the defense did not make a prima facie showing of group bias.id: 12586
Appellant failed to establish that youths, people with less than a high school education, blue collar workers and people under the poverty level constituted cognizable groups.Appellant challenged the composition of the jury venire on the grounds that youths, persons with a high school education or less, blue collar workers, and those below the poverty level were systematically excluded. However, collateral estoppel prevented litigation of the issue because the identical issue was raised in an opinion decided by the same court, and the instant appellants incorporated the opening brief of the appellants in the other case. Moreover, appellants failed to meet their burden of showing that youths, persons with less than a high school education, persons at or below the poverty level and blue collar workers constituted cognizable groups.id: 12587
Appellate court need not conduct a comparative analysis of prospective jurors excused with prosecutor's peremptory challenges to determine whether race-neutral reasons were pretextual for Wheeler purposes.Defendant argued the appellate court is required to perform a comparative juror analysis and to overturn the trial court's determination that a prosecutor acted in good faith in excusing blacks from the jury panel, if the appellate court concludes the prosecutor's race neutral reasons for those peremptory challenges were pretextual because the prosecutor did not excuse non-black prospective jurors with similar characteristics. However, such a comparative juror analysis is not required although some federal courts have applied such an analysis it is not universally accepted by all federal circuit courts. Moreover, the suggestion fails to recognize numerous practical considerations which make a comparative analysis unworkable on review.id: 12588
Counsel's explanation that the first black prospective juror was challenged was insufficient to establish a prima facie showing of systematic exclusion.During voir dire, the prosecutor exercised a peremptory challenge against a black prospective juror and defense counsel objected. Counsel's brief explanation of the basis for his objection ("the first black prospective juror was challenged") was insufficient to establish a prima facie showing of systematic exclusion or purposeful discrimination.id: 12589
Court did not err in denying the request to augment the record with the entire voir dire transcript for purposes of a Wheeler motion.The prosecutor used three peremptory challenges to excuse Black prospective jurors. After the third challenge defendant made a <i>Wheeler</i> motion, claiming the prosecutor's reasons for excusing the jurors were disingenuous. The appellate record furnished to defendant contained the voir dire of the three challenged jurors and the argument and ruling on the <i>Wheeler</i> motion. Still, defendant sought to augment the record with a transcript of the entire jury voir dire. The court did not err in failing to grant the request because the record on appeal contained everything necessary for counsel to brief the issue and for the court to render a decision.id: 12590
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Exclusion of 18-25 year-olds from the youthful offender provisions of section 3051 did not violate equal protection. Penal Code section 3051 establishes a parole eligibility hearing for juveniles convicted of special circumstance murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Excluding persons 18-25 from the youthful offender parole hearing provision did not violate equal protection principles.id: 27245