Defendant and Appellant. ) Super. Ct. No. 452067-2
___________ )
Story Continued from Part V …………
Admittedly, a prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to several prospective jurors in a particular racial or ethnic group may appear more suspect than if he or she exercised merely one. Accordingly, even if a defendant's Batson/Wheeler motion pertaining to the first prospective juror of a particular cognizable group excused is denied for a lack of a prima facie showing, he is likely to make one or more subsequent Batson/Wheeler motions after a prosecutor peremptorily challenges several more prospective jurors of that same group. And if a trial court finds a prima facie showing of group bias at a later point in voir dire, the court need only ask the prosecutor to explain 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.
