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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Penal Code section 1089 - misconduct - I believe it's 1089 or the applicable section of the Penal Code - there's grounds for substituting an alternate. This court believes that the juror is guilty of misconduct, and guided by Supreme Court case ofPeople vs. Daniel. I will do one more inquiry ofJuror No. 10 before I excuse her. Would you please bring Juror No. 10 back. 15 (18RT 4455:23 to 4456:1-25; emphasis added.) Following the court's ruling, counsel for appellant raised once more the question of whether the jury had reached an impasse and whether that may have preceded Juror No. 10's conversations with her mother and friend. (18RT 4457.) In response to counsel's request, the court stated: Thank you. And that is covered for the record. Just to let you know, that does not change the court's opinion, because the court is forever disclosed [sic] from doing further readbacks and reading instructions and allowing for the juror to participate. Even if the jury is at impasse 10 to 2, that does not foreclose the court from sending them back with more instructions or otherwise more deliberation. Therefore, the juror has committed misconduct. (18RT 4457:27-28 to 4458:1-7.) Subsequently, after the court dealt with another juror issue, counsel for Nunez asked that the court inquire whether the jury had reached a verdict late Wednesday. (18RT 4467.) The court responded: Mr. McCabe, just so that the record on appeal is clear, because Mr. Anthony has raised the same issue, I will give you the same response. The jury is at an impasse, and then this issue with No. 10 comes up. Regardless of whether it's Wednesday or Thursday, it forecloses this court from reading further instructions, having further readback, to have them deliberate further. In this court's humble opinion, okay, that juror has committed misconduct, regardless of what - there is no verdict unless all 12 people agree. 15 When Juror No. 10 was brought back before the court, the court made no further inquiry. Instead, the court admonished the juror concerning discussions about the case with others. (18RT 4458-4459.) 138
There is an impasse. It is hung. But that juror took it upon herself to talk to members of the family or friends; and therefore, this court's ruling stands, and that it is inconsequential whether they have an agreement of 10 to 2. It forecloses this court from ordering them into further deliberation. She has committed misconduct. We can argue all we want. I'm not going to ask that question of the foreperson. (l8RT 4467:16-28 to 4468:1-5; emphasis added.) Counsel for Nunez explained that he believed it was improper to remove a juror when the jury had reached an impasse and he understood the jury to have been at an impasse before Juror No. 10 had a discussion with anyone. (18RT 4468.) The court stated: Thank you. You've made your comment, and so that the appellate court time line is clear, they're hung at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, and she spoke with the family members on Wednesday night. (l8RT 4468:18-21; emphasis added.) Counsel for appellant sought to clarify the record by reminding the court that Juror No. 10 had said the jury was at an impasse on Wednesday before she went home. (l8RT 4468.) The court replied: Even if there was an impasse on Wednesday night, okay, on Thursday - let me just share with you just so that the record is clear - even if there's an impasse on Wednesday night, and even if they have an agreement, okay, and that there's nothing done on Thursday except for writing the form - even if that is the case, it forecloses this court from having had the opportunity to read further instructions, to be able to, you know, read further testimony, to be able to get this jury to further deliberate. So that is all inconsequential. (18RT 4469:3-12.) The court began the next trial day by revisiting its ruling regarding Juror No. 10. Although the court's earlier rulings appeared to pinpoint Juror No. 10's 139
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 and 146: (Id at p. 821.) This court has char
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: had in fact reached an impasse at t
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?