Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...
Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...
Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Where Juror No. 2211 is concerned, however, respondent's contention<br />
suffers from a fatal defect because, as respondent acknowledges, albeit only when<br />
separate parts <strong>of</strong> its argument are read together, respondent is unable to identify<br />
Juror No. 2211 's jury questionnaire (RB at p. 83 fn. 47) and so respondent's<br />
contention that all three jurors took an "adequate trial oath" rests on respondent's<br />
presumption that Juror No. 2211 responded "No" to question 226 (RB at p. 84).<br />
Since respondent's presumption is no more than speculation by another name,<br />
respondent in essence asks this court to find the jury was properly sworn on a<br />
flawed premise.<br />
Moreover, respondent's contention can only prevail if this court were<br />
willing to place its imprimatur on a statement such as this one by respondent: "In<br />
other words, the answers and signatures under penalty <strong>of</strong> perjury to Question 226<br />
(by prospective jurors 4965, 8971, and 2211) were a stronger declaration <strong>of</strong><br />
commitment to (and understanding <strong>of</strong>) a trial juror's duty than the trial-juror oath<br />
in subdivision (b) <strong>of</strong> section 232 <strong>of</strong> the Code <strong>of</strong> Civil Procedure." (RB at p. 86.)<br />
Such a representation that Juror 2211 answered Question 226 (and answered it in<br />
the negative, at that) when respondent is unable to identify the actual questionnaire<br />
is insupportable.<br />
In short, assummg arguendo that respondent's contention that the<br />
prospective and alternate jurors' oaths taken by the jurors plus a negative response<br />
to Question 226 amounts to the equivalent <strong>of</strong>the trial juror's oath set forth in Code<br />
<strong>of</strong> Civil Procedure 232, subdivision (b), respondent's contention must fall <strong>of</strong> its<br />
own weight by respondent's inability to demonstrate that Juror 2211 in fact<br />
answered Question 226 in the negative.<br />
In addition, respondent's claim lacks merit because the language <strong>of</strong> the<br />
prospective juror's oath requiring the juror to be truthful in answering questions<br />
during the jury selection process, and the language <strong>of</strong> the alternate juror's oath to<br />
listen to the evidence and the trial court's instructions and to act as a trial juror<br />
when called upon to do so, when combined with the language <strong>of</strong> Question 226,<br />
112