Packer v. Superior Court
2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 1478
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Packer seeks writ relief from denial of a Penal Code section 995 motion to dismiss an indictment on grand juror bias grounds.
- The Husteds were murdered in 2009 during a home invasion; an unborn child also died; a nine-year-old witnessed the crime.
- DNA from the visor and fingernails matched Packer with extremely small probabilities via CODIS.
- A special grand jury indicted Packer on three counts of first degree murder, robbery, and burglary, plus a multiple-murder special-circumstance for death penalty eligibility.
- Juror No. 2, employed by the Task Force, disclosed work for the sheriff’s department; she later stated she could be impartial; Packer claimed bias and requested dismissal under section 995.
- The trial court denied, and the Supreme Court granted review to address grand juror bias as raised by Packer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether grand juror bias is cognizable to dismiss an indictment. | Packer argues due process requires bias-free grand jurors. | Kempley bars dismissal for grand juror bias; bias claim not cognizable. | No dismissal for bias; Kempley governs unless overruled or moot. |
| Whether Juror No. 2’s Task Force employment created actual bias against Packer. | Packer asserts bias due to prosecution-side role. | Juror No. 2 did not demonstrate actual bias; she stated impartiality. | No actual bias proven; juror’s impartiality presumed credible. |
| Whether the due process clause requires an unbiased grand jury in California. | Packer cites potential due process right to unbiased grand jury. | State has not clearly recognized such a right; Kempley controls. | Unneeded to decide due process right; no actual bias shown. |
| Whether the prosecution could determine juror impartiality or whether the court must. | Question prosecutorial discretion over voir dire and biases. | Court and statute permit court intervention; prosecutor consulted court. | Prosecution’s voir dire adequate; court could act but record supports decision. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Kempley, 205 Cal. 441 (Cal. 1928) (grand jury bias not cognizable to dismiss indictment)
- Kempley v. State, 205 Cal. 441 (Cal. 1928) ((same as above))
- People v. Cohen, 12 Cal.App.3d 298 (Cal. App. 1970) (grand jury bias generally not grounds to dismiss unless due process violated? (contextual))
- Boehm, 270 Cal.App.2d 13 (Cal. App. 1969) (prosecution/investigation context; grand jury composition issues recognized)
- Stark v. Superior Court, 52 Cal.4th 368 (Cal. 2011) (due process and grand jury independence/impairment considerations)
- Backus, 23 Cal.3d 360 (Cal. 1979) (need to ensure grand jury independence from prosecutors)
- Johnson v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.3d 248 (Cal. 1975) (prosecutor’s duty to present exculpatory evidence; grand jury context)
- Hopkins v. State, 329 A.2d 747 (Del. 1974) (grand jury impartiality considerations (cited as analogous authority))
- State v. Murphy, 538 A.2d 1239 (N.J. 1988) (due process right to unbiased grand jury recognized by some jurisdictions)
- People v. DePriest, 42 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2007) (employment of officials involved in investigation not per se disqualifying)
- Beck v. Washington, 369 U.S. 541 (U.S. 1962) (due process and unbiased grand jury; unsettled federal rule)
- U.S. v. Knowles, 147 F. Supp. 20 (D.D.C. 1957) (grand jury independence not dependent on isolation of all extraneous knowledge)