Metnews.com: California v. Douglas 2018 S.O.S. 2135
The Third District Court of Appeal has declared, in a 2-1 opinion, that a gay man convicted in connection with a shooting is entitled to a new trial because two prospective jurors who are gay were excused by the prosecution partially based on their sexual orientation, even though there was a valid ground for rejecting each of them independently of that factor.
One dismissed venireman told of a close relationship with a deputy public defender who portrayed prosecutors as being on the “dark side” of the legal profession and the other, by demeanor, evinced antipathy to the prosecution.
Writing for herself and Presiding Justice Coleman Blease, Justice Elana Duarte said in an opinion filed late Thursday:
“This case is about fairness and equality in our criminal justice system. When a party exercises a peremptory challenge against a prospective juror for an invidious reason, the fact that the party may also have had one or more legitimate reasons for challenging that juror does not eliminate the taint to the process. We reject the application in these circumstances of the so-called ‘mixed motive’ or ‘dual motive’ analysis, which arose in employment discrimination cases as a way for defendant-employers to show that they would have taken an adverse action against a plaintiff-employee whether or not an impermissible factor also animated the employment decision. We hold it is not appropriate to use that test when considering the remedy for invidious discrimination in jury selection, which should be free of any bias.”
Comments