IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
)
v. )
Defendant and Appellant. ) Super. Ct. No. 452067-2
___________ )
Story Continued from Part VI …………
Rojas himself, however, denied any involvement in Medina's rape and in the murders. Defendant claims Rojas was an accomplice as a matter of law because his testimony contradicted that of prosecution and defense witnesses and was â€
| Description | Prospective jurors in a capital case may be discharged for cause based solely on answers to written questionnaire if it is clear that they are unwilling to temporarily set aside own beliefs and follow the law. Trial court did not abuse discretion under Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 223 in setting time limit on counsel's voir dire of potential jurors individually or in the aggregate. When trial court determines that defendant has made a prima facie showing that a particular prospective juror has been challenged by prosecution because of bias, court need not ask the prosecutor to justify challenges to other prospective jurors of the same group for which the court has already denied a Batson/Wheeler mistrial motion. Prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to eliminate four jurors who did not wholeheartedly support death penalty did not violate defendant's constitutional rights to due process, fundamentally fair trial by an impartial jury, or a reliable judgment. |
| Rating |
Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.
