Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

XVI. THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL AND TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHEN IT DISCHARGED JUROR NO. 10 IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SHOWING MISCONDUCT TO A DEMONSTRABLE REALITY A. This court Has Recently Made Clear That In Juror Removal Cases The Record Must Show A Juror's Inability To Perform As A Juror To A Demonstrable Reality In the opening brief, appellant contended the trial court violated appellant's right to jury trial and to due process of law when it discharged Juror No. 10, a deliberating juror, pursuant to Penal Code section 1089. (AOB at pp. 262-279.) At the time appellant filed his opening brief, a trial court's decision to remove a deliberating juror was reviewed on appeal for abuse of discretion. (AOB at p. 269.) Since then, as the Attorney General correctly indicates (RB 234-237), this court has stated that the "more stringent demonstrable reality standard" is the appropriate standard ofreview in juror removal cases. In People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal. 4th 758 this court stated: Although we have previously indicated that a trial court's decision to remove a juror pursuant to section 1089 is reviewed on appeal for abuse ofdiscretion [citation] we have since clarified that a somewhat stronger showing than what is ordinarily implied by that standard of review is required. Thus, a juror's inability to perform as a juror must be shown as a "demonstrable reality" [citation], which requires a "stronger evidentiary showing than mere substantial evidence" (id. at p. 488 (conc. opn. of Werdegar, J.)). As we recently explained in People v. Barnwell (2007) 41 Ca1.4th 1038, 1052: "To dispel any lingering uncertainty, we explicitly hold that the more stringent demonstrable reality standard is to be applied in review of juror removal cases. That heightened standard more fully reflects an appellate court's obligation to protect a defendant's fundamental rights to due process and to a fair trial by an unbiased jury." 130
(Id at p. 821.) This court has characterized "[s]ubstantial evidence" as a "deferential" standard. (See, e.g., People v. Carter (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1114, 1140.) "Although 'substantial' evidence is not synonymous with 'any' evidence .. , the standard is easily satisfied." (9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 363, p. 413.) In contrast, the demonstrable reality test is more rigorous and disciplined. In Barnwell, this court explained the difference between the substantial evidence inquiry and the demonstrable reality test. The substantial evidence review is as follows: A substantial evidence inquiry examines the record in the light most favorable to the judgment and upholds it if the record contains reasonable, credible evidence ofsolid value upon which a reasonable trier of fact could have relied in reaching the conclusion in question. Once such evidence is found, the substantial evidence test is satisfied. [citation] Even when there is a significant amount of countervailing evidence, the testimony of a single witness that satisfies the standard is sufficient to uphold the finding. (People v. Barnwell, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 1053.) The more severe demonstrable reality inquiry is less deferential. entails a more comprehensive review, and considers whether the trial court's reasons are manifestly supported by the evidence on which the court actually relied to find juror misconduct. It requires a showing that the court as trier of fact did rely on evidence that, in light of the entire record, supports its conclusion that bias was established. It is important to make clear that a reviewing court does not reweigh the evidence under either test. Under the demonstrable reality standard, however, the reviewing court must be confident that the trial court's conclusion IS manifestly supported by evidence on which the court actually relied. In reaching that conclusion, the reviewing panel will consider not just the evidence itself, but also the record of reasons the court provides. A trial court facilitates review when it expressly sets out its analysis of the evidence, why it reposed greater weight on some part of it and less on another, and the basis of its 131
Page 2 and 3:
TABLE OF CONTENTS APPELLANT WILLIAM
Page 4 and 5:
2. The Pleadings Failed To NotifY A
Page 6 and 7:
VI THE JURy FAILED TO FIND THE DEGR
Page 8 and 9:
C. Standard OfReview And Prejudice
Page 10 and 11:
XIII APPELLANT JOINS IN ALL ISSUES
Page 12 and 13:
Mitchell v. Esparza (2003) 540 U.S.
Page 14 and 15:
People v. Cruz (2001) 93 Cal.App.4t
Page 16 and 17:
People v. Scott (1978) 21 Cal. 3d 2
Page 18 and 19:
CALlIC No. 8.31 passim CALJIC No. 8
Page 20 and 21:
ARGUMENTS GUILT PHASE ISSUES I THE
Page 22 and 23:
the facts indicate that only one de
Page 24 and 25:
form finding "personal use" to have
Page 26 and 27:
57 Cal.AppAth 871, 877; 9 Witkin, C
Page 28 and 29:
the weapon. Without again recountin
Page 30 and 31:
Respondent notes that between the m
Page 32 and 33:
In another apparent attempt to just
Page 34 and 35:
appellant has repeatedly said, the
Page 37 and 38:
not present them to the trial court
Page 39 and 40:
In People v. Knighten (1980) 105 Ca
Page 41 and 42:
Finally, it must be noted that the
Page 43 and 44:
B. The Constitutional Issues Are No
Page 45 and 46:
turn relied on the language from Wi
Page 47 and 48:
Indeed, in this case the instructio
Page 49 and 50:
as the prosecution's first-degree t
Page 51 and 52:
F. Conclusion In summary, by failin
Page 53 and 54:
As appellant explained in the openi
Page 55 and 56:
in the manner suggested by responde
Page 57 and 58:
Furthennore, it is well established
Page 59 and 60:
Appellant has explained above and i
Page 61 and 62:
Cal.App.3d 970, 992.) Instead, resp
Page 63 and 64:
3. Appellant's Did Not Forfeit His
Page 65 and 66:
In Argument V of the Opening Brief,
Page 67 and 68:
IV IN FAILING TO REDACT PORTIONS OF
Page 69 and 70:
People v. Barraza (1979) 23 Ca1.3d
Page 71 and 72:
have been unreasonable for the jury
Page 73 and 74:
shot Fuller and Robinson, and that
Page 75 and 76:
find 'intent to kill'" on the basis
Page 77 and 78:
THE COURT'S ERRONEOUS INSTRUCTION A
Page 79 and 80:
Robinson's wounds indicated the sho
Page 81 and 82:
caused great bodily injury or death
Page 83 and 84:
use enhancement, the statutory lang
Page 85 and 86:
192-193), but fails to explain how
Page 87 and 88:
Then we have the words "personal us
Page 89 and 90:
trial and had therefore forfeited t
Page 91 and 92:
merits of appellant's claim. (AOB a
Page 93 and 94: jury trial. (People v. Gottman (197
Page 95 and 96: Respondent argues that another theo
Page 97 and 98: needs to rely on the penalty verdic
Page 99 and 100: may not cross-examine a witness upo
Page 101 and 102: itself to appellant would be improp
Page 103 and 104: B. The Court Erred In Refusing The
Page 105 and 106: egarding the intent ofthe non-shoot
Page 107 and 108: B. Respondent's Arguments Are Mispl
Page 109 and 110: ut is only being allowed for use ag
Page 111 and 112: x THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PERMITTI
Page 113 and 114: XI THE PROSECUTOR'S MISCONDUCT IN A
Page 115 and 116: "guarantee." Appellant is not proce
Page 117 and 118: v. Berryman (1993) 6 Ca1.4th 1048,
Page 119 and 120: Contreras. Viewed in this context,
Page 122 and 123: overwhelmingly showed that only one
Page 124 and 125: XII GUILT AND PENALTY PHASE VERDICT
Page 126 and 127: Where Juror No. 2211 is concerned,
Page 128 and 129: The jury in Cruz was given a versio
Page 130 and 131: PENALTY PHASE ISSUES XIV THE TRIAL
Page 132 and 133: B. The Flaw In Respondent's Content
Page 134 and 135: participation ofall jurors. Contrar
Page 136 and 137: confuse[d]" (Harris) is no more tha
Page 138: It is submitted that these instruct
Page 141 and 142: inherent power to review an issue i
Page 143: prospective jurors who were found t
Page 147 and 148: church. (18RT 4448:4-6,4451:11-14.)
Page 149 and 150: (18RT 4450:12-14) or her mother (18
Page 151 and 152: had in fact reached an impasse at t
Page 153 and 154: There is an impasse. It is hung. Bu
Page 155 and 156: establishes, for example, that, whe
Page 157 and 158: and Code of Civil Procedure 233, wh
Page 159 and 160: a demonstrable reality. The court a
Page 161 and 162: CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT Rule 8.63
show all

Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?