People v. Thomas
137 Cal. Rptr. 3d 533
| Cal. | 2012Background
- Thomas was convicted of second degree murder of Adkins and first degree murders of Officers Burrell and MacDonald, with special circumstances of multiple murder and murder of a police officer; the jury fixed the penalty for the officer murders at death and firearms enhancements were imposed; the trial court sentenced to death on all three murders and stayed two weapon counts; appellate review was automatic; court ultimately modified the judgment to vacate death for count 1 (Adkins) and remand for a 15 to life sentence on that count.
- Witness and eyewitness testimony linked Adkins’ murder to defendant; police officer killings occurred during a traffic stop; ballistics tied the gun to the scene; defendant’s wife and friend testified to his conduct and possession of firearms; a gun was recovered and linked to Cooksey, whose testimony connected defendant to the Burrell/MacDonald killings.
- The trial included complex jury issues: use of numbered jurors, death qualification, multiple evidentiary challenges, and numerous penalty-phase instructions; joinder of the three counts was challenged but ultimately upheld; defense sought severance and sequestered voir dire but the court denied these requests.
- The penalty phase featured extensive victim impact evidence, defendant’s prior gun convictions admitted as aggravation, and multiple defense mitigation witnesses; the court conducted a broad weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors under Cal. Penal Code section 190.3.
- Issues arose concerning autopsy testimony and graphical evidence, but courts deemed such evidence admissible when relevant and non-hearsay or harmless; the court reiterated that the presence of remorse and mitigation did not compel a life sentence.
- The California Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the convictions and the death sentence, but modified count 1’s sentence to 15 years to life; the judgment as modified was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of juror numbers constitutes anonymity | Prosecution sought privacy due to threats/bribes | Anonymous jurors violate presumption of innocence and voir dire | Proper under federal/state standards |
| Individual sequestered voir dire denied | Hovey abrogated; sequestered voir dire required | Preserve possibility of candid responses | No abuse; CPT 223 allowed non-sequestered voir dire |
| Excusal for cause of two jurors (death penalty views) | Views would prevent impartial duty | Potential jurors could be impartial with guidance | Court properly excused based on state of mind |
| Prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to strike African-Americans | Racial discrimination inferred from strikes | No substantial evidence of discrimination | No prima facie case; no Wheeler/Batson violation established |
| Prosecutorial misconduct during voir dire | Statements diluted presumption of innocence | Misconduct prejudicial; tainted trial | No reversible misconduct; statements did not prejudice substantial rights |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Goodwin, 59 Cal.App.4th 1084 (Cal. App. Dist. 2) (anonymous juror policy proper in criminal trials with safety concerns)
- U.S. v. DeLuca, 137 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 1998) (anonymous juries permissible with safeguards)
- U.S. v. Ross, 33 F.3d 1507 (11th Cir. 1994) (jury anonymity with safeguards to protect rights)
- People v. Cunningham, 25 Cal.4th 926 (Cal. 2001) (death-penalty voir dire and Witt generally applied)
- People v. Carasi, 44 Cal.4th 1263 (Cal. 2008) (statistical disparity in peremptory challenges evaluated under Batson standards)