234 Cal. App. 4th 111
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Richard Ray Cisneros was convicted by a jury of two counts of making criminal threats (Pen. Code § 422) based on incidents with Ebony Pitts; other counts were mistried and later dismissed. He admitted prior felony allegations and was sentenced to an aggregate of 11 years, 4 months.
- Pitts’s preliminary hearing testimony (read at trial after she was deemed unavailable) described two threatening incidents: one in May 2011 (knife threat) and one in October 2011 (telephone threat). Law enforcement and a prior domestic violence witness corroborated violent history evidence; Cisneros testified and denied the threats.
- During jury selection the prosecutor used a series of peremptory challenges that removed multiple male prospective jurors, resulting in a final panel of 10 women and 2 men.
- Defense counsel repeatedly raised Batson/Wheeler motions alleging gender discrimination in the prosecutor’s strikes; the trial court found prima facie cases at several points but accepted the prosecutor’s offered race‑/gender‑neutral reasons and denied relief.
- On appeal the Court of Appeal reviewed whether the prosecutor’s explanations for excusing certain male jurors (notably Jurors 6 and 32) were sufficiently gender‑neutral. The court concluded the prosecutor’s stated preference for a subsequent juror—without articulating any characteristics or observations about the excused jurors—was not an adequate nondiscriminatory justification.
- The Court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial because the prosecutor failed to carry step two of the Batson/Wheeler analysis as to at least two challenged male jurors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutor’s peremptory strikes of male jurors violated Batson/Wheeler | Prosecutor argued strikes were race/gender neutral, based on specific reasons for some jurors and preference for other jurors for two (e.g., liked the next juror better) | Cisneros argued the pattern of striking men and the prosecutor’s reliance on "preferring the next juror" was pretextual and insufficient at step two | Court held prosecutor’s reasons for excusing Jurors 6 and 32 (preferring the next juror without articulating any qualities of the excused jurors) were not adequate nondiscriminatory explanations and warranted reversal |
| Remedy for established purposeful discrimination in peremptory strikes | People implicitly argued any error was harmless or adequately justified | Cisneros sought a new trial | Court held purposeful discrimination in jury selection is structural error requiring reversal and a new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (prosecutorial peremptory strikes based on group characteristics violate Equal Protection)
- People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d 258 (California formulation of Batson for race/gender challenges)
- People v. Avila, 38 Cal.4th 491 (discusses Batson/Wheeler step framework and trial court’s role)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (prosecution must offer race-neutral basis after prima facie showing)
- Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333 (burden shifts and review of prosecutor’s explanation at Batson step two)
- Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (articulating Batson burden-shifting framework)
- People v. Hamilton, 45 Cal.4th 863 (Batson procedural standards and appellate review)
- People v. Silva, 25 Cal.4th 345 (exclusion of juror based on protected characteristic is reversible per se)