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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ultimate conclusion that a juror was failing to follow the oath. In taking the serious step of removing a deliberating juror the court must be mindful of its duty to provide a record that supports its decision by a demonstrable reality. (People v. Barnwell, supra, 41 Ca1.4th at pp. 1053-1054.) In his opening brief, appellant contended that the trial court's finding that Juror No. 10 had been influenced by her conversations with her mother and her friend was unsupported by the evidence under the substantial evidence test. (AOB aat pp. 272-273.) Appellant now asserts that the trial court's conclusion that Juror No. 10 had been influenced by outside sources is not supported in the record to a demonstrable reality. B. The Record Does Not Establish To A Demonstrable Reality That Juror No. 10 Committed Misconduct Warranting Removal Appellant provided a summary of the factual events leading up to the trial court's removal ofJuror No. 10 in the opening brief. (AOB 264-268.) This court made clear in Barnwell that a reviewing court's task is to scrutinize the trial court's ruling to see that it is manifestly supported by the facts. And, so, appellant supplements the factual summary in the opening brief with a more detailed account ofthe trial court's various restatements ofits ruling below. correction. But, first, aspects of the Attorney General's factual summary require 1. Aspects ofthe Attorney General's Factual Summary Require Correction The Attorney General states that Juror No. 10 appeared to be "seeking extrinsic or expert religious views during her penalty deliberations" because Juror No. 10 called her mother who was "at church." (RB 243 fn. 92; citing to 18RT 4451.) The record does not support respondent's description ofthe situation. The record shows that at a point when she believed the case was done, Juror No. 10 called her mother and learned from her cousin that her mother was at 132
church. (18RT 4448:4-6,4451:11-14.) Juror No. 10 told her mother the purpose of her call was to see how her mother was doing. (l8RT 4451:15-16.) They talked about various things and at the end of the conversation Juror No. 10 responded to her mother's question about how the case was going by saying, "it's done." (l8RT 4451:18-24.) Juror No. 10 then reported the following colloquy with her mother in which she said, "I have some issues and some stuff that I have to work out, and she said, well, just pray; and, you know, which we don't agree on that; but then that's neither here nor there." (l8RT 4451:26-28 to 4452:1; emphasis added.) In direct response to the court's questions, Juror No. 10 also said she did not share her concerns about the issues or her views regarding the death penalty with her mother. (l8RT 4452:2-9.) Thus, this record makes it very clear that Juror No. 10 was not seeking extrinsic or expert religious views in calling her mother, as respondent would have this court believe. The record, therefore, fails to show to a demonstrable reality that the juror was calling her mother for the purpose ofseeking religious views and respondent's factual construct must be rejected. Respondent also asserts that Juror No. 10 exposed the entire jury to extrinsic matters by informing the jurors that her mother and her friend '"sided with her doubts' as to the death penalty." (RB 243.) The record does not establish this to a demonstrable reality. Instead, the record shows that the "sided-with-her-doubts" language had its source not in the responses by Juror No. 10 to the court's questions, but in the written note of the jury foreman, which stated in relevant part, "Jury member No. 10 [] stated that she had confided with her friends and mother and that they sided with her doubts. Possibly replacing her would be appropriate." (l8RT 4443-4444.) The record shows that prior to removing Juror No. 10, the trial court heard in seriatim from the jury foreperson (Juror No.6) and from Juror No. 10. In the portion of the hearing involving the jury foreperson, the court confirmed that the 133
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 and 144: prospective jurors who were found t
Page 145: (Id at p. 821.) This court has char
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?