At Voir Dire, Judges Must Interview Prospective Jurors if they Ambiguously Oppose Death Penalty

If a juror provides an ambiguous answer to whether they would not impose the death penalty, the judge has the obligation to interview the candidate further to determine their view on the issue

People v. Covarrubias, 2016 BL 293182, Cal., No. S075136, 9/8/16.

The California Supreme Court held that jury candidates that are opposed to the death penalty can be removed, but if their answer is ambiguous, then the court must interview the candidate personally to clarify their stance. The case arose because of a juror that marked on a written questionnaire that he was “strongly opposed” to the death penalty and would “probably refuse” to impose it. The prosecutor successfully challenged and removed the candidate from the jury pool. The court found this to be an error, however, because the judge should not have removed him without further investigating his views, especially since the same juror said he would “probably” be able to set aside his personal beliefs in sentencing.

The trial court has the obligation to investigate any ambiguous statements made by a juror. The error, however, does not reverse the conviction but does require a reversal of the death sentence.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/People_v_Covarrubias_No_S075136_2016_BL_293182_Cal_Sept_08_2016_C.

After 30 Years, Race-Biased Conviction Overturned

Striking potential jurors based on race is unconstitutional, reaffirming earlier Supreme Court ruling preventing the use of race in jury selection

Foster v. Chatman, 2016 BL 162869, U.S., No. 14-8349, reversed and remanded 5/23/16

 

    The United States Supreme Court ruled that peremptory jury strikes motivated by race are impermissible, reaffirming the court’s 1986 ruling in Batson v. Kentucky.  Annotations along names of black jurors, such as “Definite No” and “No. No Black Church” were “as clear as a Batson violation as a court is ever going to see.”

    

   The Supreme Court focused on two jurors who were stricken. The state offered 11 neutral, non-race based reasons for striking the first juror and eight reasons for the second juror. The Court, however, found the reasons unconvincing and merely suggested pretext. In the opinion, the Court notes the “focus on race in the prosecution’s file plainly demonstrates a concerted effort to keep black prospective jurors off the jury.” 

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Foster_v_Chatman_No_148349_2016_BL_162869_US_May_23_2016_Court_Op