Disorder in the Court

Sometimes trials are won or lost before the first witness takes the stand or the first exhibit is introduced, sometimes even before the attorneys make their opening statements. The process of selecting jurors, the most tedious portion of any trial, can so heavily weigh on what follows that no matter how compelling the evidence or how persuasive the arguments may be, the seeds of an unsatisfactory verdict can sometimes be traced back to when some troublesome juror was allowed to remain on the panel.

Here in California, the Home of Bad Ideas, the state’s legislature and Supreme Court have placed their big, fat thumbs on the scales of justice and made it more difficult for prosecutors to dismiss jurors they would prefer not serve. In July, the California Supreme Court overturned a man’s attempted murder conviction when it held that the trial court judge had impermissibly granted a prosecutor’s peremptory challenge, and excused a juror who was “not paying attention.” 

The facts of the case are distilled as follows: In January 2022, Jose Sanmiguel attacked two men in a Thousand Oaks, Calif., homeless encampment, striking them with a metal bar. One of the victims was seriously injured, the other, less so. Sanmiguel was identified as a suspect, and attempted to flee and hide when sheriff’s deputies went to his home. He waived his Miranda rights but denied responsibility for the crimes, and denied being in the vicinity of the homeless encampment at the time of the attack. Expert testimony relying on data collected from his mobile phone placed Sanmiguel (or his phone, at least) at the scene, and he was convicted of one count of attempted murder and one count of assault with a deadly weapon.

Sanmiguel appealed his convictions on several grounds, one of which was that a prospective juror, a Hispanic man, had been excused when the prosecutor exercised a peremptory challenge and had not fully placed on the record a “race-neutral” reason for doing so. The prospective juror was Hispanic, as were both Sanmiguel and the victim of the attempted murder.

Section 231.7 of California Code of Civil Procedure mandates that a trial judge, in evaluating an objection to the opposing party’s peremptory challenge, must determine if “there is a substantial likelihood that an objectively reasonable person would view race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin, or religious affiliation, or perceived membership in any of those groups, as a factor in the use of the peremptory challenge.” If the challenging party cannot persuade the judge that the peremptory challenge is based on race-neutral factors, the objection to the challenge must be sustained.

It’s worth noting that the section defines a “reasonable person" as someone who “is aware that unconscious bias, in addition to purposeful discrimination, have resulted in the unfair exclusion of potential jurors in the State of California.” Nowhere in the law is there mention of instances in which jurors’ racial solidarity with defendants has produced the occasional obscene acquittal (see the case of Simpson, Orenthal James).

Section 231.7(g)(2) reads as follows: “The reasons set forth in paragraph (1) are presumptively invalid unless the trial court is able to confirm that the asserted behavior occurred, based on the court’s own observations or the observations of counsel for the objecting party. Even with that confirmation, the counsel offering the reason shall explain why the asserted demeanor, behavior, or manner in which the prospective juror answered questions matters to the case to be tried” (emphasis added).

At Sanmiguel’s trial, the prosecutor noted that one prospective juror seemed less attentive than the others, and “didn’t have much of anything to say” in response to the prosecutor’s questions. The trial judge confirmed the prosecutor's observations and overruled the defense attorney’s objection, and the juror was dismissed.

A California Court of Appeals panel upheld the conviction, acknowledging that while the prosecutor and judge might have made a more thorough record, the fact that a prospective juror was inattentive was sufficient grounds for a peremptory challenge and that a reversal of the conviction was unwarranted.

In a sane and just world, this is where the matter would have concluded. But again, this is California, which is neither sane nor just, and the California Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion, ruled that Sanmiguel is entitled to a new trial. Our learned betters of the Court, like their fellow travelers in the state legislature, seem to be of the opinion that bigotry lurks behind every paneled wall of every courtroom, and it is only this bigotry that explains why so many black and Hispanic men are languishing in California’s prisons. The court held that neither the trial judge nor the prosecutor satisfactorily explained on the record something that one of ordinary common sense would assume could be taken for granted, which is that an inattentive juror would matter in Sanmiguel’s case.

The Court’s Sanmiguel opinion concludes thus:

We end with a reminder for all litigants and courts that face similar issues. The Legislature enacted section 231.7 for the purpose of eliminating the taint of invidious discrimination, whether conscious or unconscious, from the selection of juries. If the statute is to fulfill that vital purpose, trial courts must exercise care in ruling on section 231.7 objections, mindful of the pernicious nature of the bias that the statute was designed to combat. Appellate courts, in turn, must give scrupulous consideration to the records before them to determine whether, considering all relevant circumstances, the proceedings failed to satisfy the principle of equal treatment embodied in section 231.7. 

So at the great expense of taxpayers, Mr. Sanmiguel, who is unquestionably guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted, will be given a new trial, perhaps one from which some other novel affront to justice and common sense may arise, and afford the California Supreme Court the opportunity to order yet another trial.

And they wonder why people are fleeing California.

Editor's Note: Unelected federal judges are obstructing President Trump's agenda and ignoring the will of the people.

Help us expose out-of-control judges determined to halt President Trump's mandate for change. Join PJ Media VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.