Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...

XVII
THE TRIAL COURT'S REMOVAL OF JUROR NO.9 VIOLATED
APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL
AND TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND IS NOT MANIFESTLY
SUPPORTED TO A DEMONSTRABLE REALITY
BY THE EVIDENCE
A. This court Has Recently Made Clear That In Juror Removal Cases The
Record Must Show A Juror's Inability To Perform As A Juror To A
Demonstrable Reality
In the preceding argument concerning the trial court's removal of Juror No.
10, appellant explained that this court has recently made clear that the record must
show the juror's inability to perfonn as a juror to a demonstrable reality.
Appellant incorporates that discussion here by reference because the demonstrable
reality standard governs appellant's claim regarding the court's removal of Juror
No.9.
Both Wilson and Barnwell made clear that Cleveland's demonstrable reality
standard is the appropriate standard of review in juror removal cases. (People v.
Wilson, supra, 44 Ca1.4th at p. 821; People v. Barnwell, supra, 41 Ca1.4th at pp.
1053-1054.)
B. The Record Does Not Establish To A Demonstrable Reality That Juror No.
9 Was Unable To Perform Her Duty As A Juror
Appellant has set forth the events leading up to the court's removal ofJuror
No.9 from the jury in the opening briefand explained there why it is apparent that
at the time of her discharge Juror No. 9 was the lone holdout juror. (AOB 278­
282.)
Juror No. 9:
The trial court made the following record with regard to its removal of
[] The court finds good cause to excuse Juror No.9. Just so that
record is perfected, the court has considered Penal Code section 1089
146