People v. Gutierrez
S224724A
Cal.Jun 1, 2017Background
- Three Hispanic defendants (Gutierrez, Ramos, Enriquez) convicted of gang-related offenses after jury trial in Kern County; defendants jointly moved under Batson/Wheeler claiming prosecutor used peremptory strikes to remove Hispanic jurors.
- Prosecutor had exercised 16 peremptory strikes by the time of the Batson/Wheeler motion; 10 were against prospective jurors identified as Hispanic (including four consecutive Hispanic strikes).
- Trial court found a prima facie case but denied the Batson/Wheeler motion after accepting the prosecutor’s neutral reasons for the challenged strikes; the Court of Appeal affirmed.
- The Supreme Court reviewed whether the record supported the trial court’s denial as to at least one juror (Prospective Juror No. 2723471) and whether the Court of Appeal erred by refusing comparative juror analysis on appeal.
- The Supreme Court held the record did not support the trial court’s acceptance of the prosecutor’s justification for striking Juror 2723471, found the error structural, and reversed the convictions; it also held appellate comparative analysis is permissible when the record allows.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Defendants’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutor’s peremptory strikes violated Batson/Wheeler by targeting Hispanics | The prosecutor gave race-neutral, specific reasons for each strike (gang connections, negative police experiences, doubts about deliberative participation, life experience/hardship); reasons were facially neutral and credible | The pattern and quantity of strikes against Hispanics, plus implausible or unsupported explanations for at least one juror, show purposeful discrimination | Reversed: at least one strike (Juror 2723471) lacked adequate, credible justification; Batson/Wheeler violation found (structural error) |
| Sufficiency of the prosecutor’s explanation for striking Juror 2723471 (Wasco-related rationale) | The Wasco rationale was a clear, reasonably specific, facially neutral concern related to a key witness’s Wasco gang affiliation | The Wasco reason was unsupported, speculative, and used as a proxy for ethnicity; prosecutor didn’t meaningfully probe or explain why it mattered | Explanation was not credibly supported on the record; trial court failed to make a sincere, reasoned assessment — reversal required |
| Use of comparative juror analysis on appeal | Comparative analysis is often imprecise and courts should defer to trial court credibility findings | Comparative analysis is probative of pretext and may be considered on appeal if the record permits | Court of Appeal erred in categorically rejecting comparative analysis; appellate comparison is appropriate when the record is adequate |
| Remedy for Batson/Wheeler violation | Even if error, deferential review and harmlessness analysis apply | Excluding a juror for race/ethnicity causes structural error requiring reversal | Exclusion of even one juror for race/ethnicity is structural error; convictions reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Wheeler v. California, 22 Cal.3d 258 (Cal. 1978) (state constitutional counterpart to Batson; peremptory strikes may not be used to exclude jurors on racial or similar grounds)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (peremptory strikes based on race violate Equal Protection)
- Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (U.S. 2005) (comparative juror analysis and scrutiny of prosecutor notes/statistics in Batson review)
- Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (U.S. 1995) (second-step Batson requires a facially neutral explanation; plausibility is relevant to credibility but not second-step validity)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (U.S. 2003) (factors for assessing credibility of prosecutor’s explanations)
- Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162 (U.S. 2005) (prima facie Batson showing standard)
- Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (U.S. 2008) (comparative analysis and importance of specific record findings about demeanor/reasons)
- People v. Silva, 25 Cal.4th 345 (Cal. 2001) (trial court must make a sincere, reasoned attempt to evaluate prosecutor’s explanations; unexplained rulings get little deference)
- People v. Lenix, 44 Cal.4th 602 (Cal. 2008) (requirement to consider all relevant circumstances and that comparative juror analysis may be considered on appeal)