| |
People v. Lenix (2008) , Cal.4th
[No. S148029. Jul. 24, 2008.]
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ARTHUR LOURDES LENIX, Defendant and Appellant.
(Superior Court of Kern County, No. BF100124B, Arthur E. Wallace, Judge.)
OPINION
CORRIGAN, J.-
Here we determine whether an appellate court must perform a comparative juror analysis for the first time on appeal to evaluate whether the advocate's stated reasons for peremptorily challenging prospective jurors are truthful or pretextual. (See People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 (Wheeler); Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79 (Batson.) The United States Supreme Court conducted such a comparative analysis for the first time on appeal in Miller-El v. Dretke (2005) 545 U.S. 231 (Miller-El II) fn. 1 and again recently in Snyder v. Louisiana (2008) __ U.S. __, 128 S.Ct. 1203 (Snyder). When read in their entirety, those cases stand for the unremarkable principle that reviewing courts must consider all evidence bearing on the trial court's factual finding regarding discriminatory intent. Comparative juror analysis is evidence that, while subject to inherent limitations, must be considered when reviewing claims of error at Wheeler/Batson's third stage when the defendant relies on such evidence and the record is adequate to permit the {Slip Opn. Page 2} comparisons. In those circumstances, comparative juror analysis must be performed on appeal even when such an analysis was not conducted below.
|
|
 |
Los Angeles DUI Attorney & Violent Crime Lawyer
Los Angeles Employment Attorney
Site Map
The information on this California Criminal Defense Attorneys / Law Firm website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this or associated pages, documents, comments, answers, emails, or other communications should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information on this website is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing of this information does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.
All case summaries are from public records and not associated with Dr. DUI or California Legal Team.
|
|
