Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...
Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...
Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
inherent power to review an issue in spite <strong>of</strong> a party's failure to perfectly phrase<br />
that issue; the fact that there is an exception to the waiver rule regarding issues<br />
relating to the deprivation <strong>of</strong> fundamental, constitutional rights; and the fact that<br />
there is an exception to the waiver rule that provides that an objection may be<br />
excused when the issue involved is a pure question <strong>of</strong> law. Finally, whether the<br />
waiver rule is to be applied is largely a question <strong>of</strong>the appellate court's discretion,<br />
this court should address the constitutional aspects <strong>of</strong>this issue.<br />
B. The Trial Court Erred In Excusing Prospective Juror No. 2066 For Cause.<br />
Respondent concedes that a juror may be removed for cause only when the<br />
juror indicates that he or she "in no case would vote for capital punishment,<br />
regardless <strong>of</strong>his or her instructions." (RB at p. 49, Morgan v. Illinois (1992) 504<br />
U.S. 719, 728.) However, it is clear from the proceedings below that Prospective<br />
Juror No. 2066 did not indicate that she "in no case would vote for capital<br />
punishment, regardless <strong>of</strong>his or her instructions." Rather, in the questionnaire she<br />
filled out, in response to Question 230(b) she answered "no" to the question <strong>of</strong><br />
whether her views would cause her to "refuse to find the special circumstance(s)<br />
true" to prevent the penalty phase from taking place. (23CT 6585.)<br />
Likewise, in a follow-up question, Question 230(d) she answered "no" to<br />
the inquiry <strong>of</strong>whether "in the penalty phase" her capital punishment views would<br />
cause her to "automatically refuse to vote in favor the penalty <strong>of</strong>life imprisonment<br />
without the possibility <strong>of</strong> parole and automatically vote for a penalty <strong>of</strong> death[.]"<br />
(23CT 6585.)<br />
In response to Question 230(e) she wrote "I might" as to whether her "yes"<br />
answer to Question 230(c) would "change" if (prior to voting) she were<br />
"instructed and ordered by the court" that she "must consider and weigh" the<br />
evidence and the aggravating and mitigating factors regarding the facts <strong>of</strong> the<br />
crime and the background and character <strong>of</strong>the defendant. (23CT 6586.)<br />
127