Defendants and Appellants. ) Super. Ct. No. BA001542
_______________________________________ )
Continue from Part IV …….
C. Shackling Orders (Oliver)
Oliver maintains the trial court violated People v. Duran (1976) 16 Cal.3d 282 (Duran), when it ordered (1) a leg brace on April 20, 1992, several months before trial began, and (2) a leg-waist-and-wrist chain on February 2, 1993, the day after Oliver joined Lewis in attacking counsel in court. Oliver claims the decision to restrain him before trial, and to impose heavier restraints after the midtrial assault, violated his rights generally under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and under parallel provisions of the state Constitution. He asserts that the court's rulings had the additional legal consequence of violating his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment.
Except for due process, the constitutional claims are forfeited. (Partida, supra, 37 Cal.4th 428, 435.) No state law error occurred.
Under Duran, supra, 16 Cal.3d 282, a criminal defendant may be subjected to physical restraints in the jury's presence upon â€
Description
Self-represented defendant may relinquish right to continue representing self in absence of substantial evidence of mental incompetence. Excusal of potential juror for cause in capital case was appropriate where answers to questions about death penalty were equivocal and included statement that potential juror would never vote for death penalty for nonshooter, which prosecution was seeking. Comparative analysis showing that minority venire members were challenged based on responses to questionnaires, while white venire members who gave similar answers were not challenged, did not establish that challenges were racially motivated where jurors were not similarly situated but differed with respect to such characteristics as level of knowledge of the subject matter. The vehemence and consistency or lack thereof with which they asserted views that could be construed as antipolice, antiprosecution, or antideath penalty. Trial court did not violate defendant's statutory and constitutional rights to be present at proceedings by allowing verdict to be read while defendant was hospitalized after being stabbed by another inmate. Where defendant's condition was serious, it was unknown when he would be able to return to court. He suffered no prejudice. Prosecution argument that jurors in penalty phase should take into consideration fact that murders occurred in a church did not constitute improper use of religious imagery. Trial judge is not required to augment record with personal, handwritten notes relied on in denying motion for modification of death penalty verdict.
