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

a demonstrable reality.
The court also excused the juror because the risk to her life and that ofher
child was too high a price to ask: "to ask her to continue on to endanger her life
and also the life of her unborn child, ifthat is the ultimate risk, would be - would
be a high price to pay for jury duty." (18RT 4483:28 to 4484:1-3.)
Juror No.9 did tell the court in her written note that she is "considered high
risk in this pregnancy." (18RT 4479:6-7.) But beyond that statement, the record
discloses no evidence supporting to a demonstrable reality the court's fmding that
asking the juror to continue to deliberate would "endanger her life and also the life
ofher unborn child."
As a result of the matters discussed here and in the opening brief (AOB
282-288), appellant respectfully submits that the trial court's reasons for removing
the sole holdout jury from appellant's trial are not supported to a demonstrable
reality by the evidence. Accordingly, there is no basis on which to conclude Juror
No.9 was unable to fulfill her duty as a jurorjustifying her removal from the jury.
C. Appellant's Constitutional Claims Are Not Forfeited
Respondent claims appellant has forfeited his constitutional claims by
inaction below. (RB 251-252.)
Respondent has made a similar contention with each of its arguments.
Appellant has addressed these contentions and the law upon which respondent
relies which he incorporates here by reference. (Ante, at pp. 21-27.) The case law
establishes, for example, that, where an issue may not have been properly
preserved at trial, an appellate court may review an issue in an exercise of its own
discretion; that issues relating to the deprivation of fundamental constitutional
rights or to pure questions of law are reviewable without proper preservation
below. For these reasons, appellant respectfully submits this issue is not
procedurally barred.
149