People v. Ward CA2/1
B263316
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 24, 2016Background
- In 2012 Ward was convicted of multiple robberies, related counts, and enhancements; sentenced to an aggregate term of 454 years to life.
- On direct appeal the court found the trial court erred in resolving a Batson/Wheeler challenge because the prosecutor only explained the strike for one of two challenged African-American jurors; the matter was conditionally reversed and remanded for the trial court to complete the second and third Batson/Wheeler stages.
- On remand the trial court held the Batson/Wheeler hearing more than two years after voir dire, but Ward was not present and the record contains no waiver or transportation order.
- The prosecutor offered race-neutral reasons for striking Prospective Juror No. 4 (social worker/sympathy, nonverbal responses favoring defense, a single late appearance), and the court credited those reasons based on its own review of the transcript.
- Defense counsel had no independent recollection of Juror No. 4 and effectively conceded inability to assist; the court denied dismissal and upheld the strikes, reinstating the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ward’s due process/right-to-be-present rights were violated when the remand Batson/Wheeler hearing was conducted without him | The remand hearing concerned only a question of law regarding the sufficiency of the prosecutor’s articulated reasons; Ward’s presence was not necessary | Ward’s presence was critical because the remand required factual credibility determinations and his attendance would aid counsel (recollection, communications) | Court reversed: Ward must be present on remand; absence thwarted a fair hearing |
| Whether the prosecutor’s reasons for striking Juror No. 4 were factual/credibility issues requiring defendant’s presence | Prosecutor’s stated reasons are legal/standard explanations, not dependent on defendant’s presence | Prosecutor’s reasons are factual and subjective (credibility), so defendant’s presence could affect outcome | Court: prosecutor’s reasons implicate factual credibility that defendant’s presence could materially affect |
| Whether trial court’s independent review of transcript sufficed to evaluate prosecutor’s credibility without defendant | Court suggested transcript review and court recollection are adequate | Ward argued counsel’s lack of recollection made defendant’s presence necessary to supplement record | Court held transcript review did not cure absence where defendant could have assisted counsel and trial fairness required presence |
| Appropriate remedy for the procedural error on remand | Reinstate judgment if court finds reasons permissible | At minimum, conduct a new Batson/Wheeler hearing with Ward present; possibly grant new trial if reliable determination cannot be made | Court ordered conditional reversal: remand for Batson/Wheeler stages to be performed in Ward’s presence; if court cannot reliably determine or finds improper strike, grant new trial; otherwise reinstate judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (constitutional prohibition on race-based peremptory challenges)
- Wheeler v. California, 22 Cal.3d 258 (California rule against group-based peremptory strikes)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (trial court must assess credibility of prosecutor’s race-neutral explanations)
- People v. Marks, 152 Cal.App.4th 1325 (defendant’s absence during peremptory challenges can violate due process when it causes breakdown in attorney-client communication)
- People v. Bradford, 15 Cal.4th 1229 (defendant’s right to be present for critical stages affecting fairness and outcome)