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 ...
C. Standard OfReview And Prejudice 114 PENALTY PHASE ISSUES 116 XIV THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT IT WAS REQUIRED TO SET ASIDE ALL PRIOR DISCUSSIONS RELATING TO PENALTY AND BEGIN PENALTY DELIBERATIONS ANEW WHEN TWO JURORS WERE REPLACED BY ALTERNATE JURORS AFTER THE GUILT VERDICT HAD BEEN REACHED AND THE PENALTY CASE HAD BEEN TO THE JURY. THIS ERROR DEPRIVED APPELLANT OF THE RIGHT TO A JURY DETERMINATION THE PENALTY AND THE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW 116 A. The Doctrine OfInvited Error Is Not Applicable 116 B. The Flaw In Respondent's Contentions. 118 C. Appellant Was Prejudiced By The Failure OfThe Trial Court To Instruct The Newly Reconstituted Jury To Begin Deliberations Anew. 120 D. Conclusion 125 XV THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR UNDER WITHERSPOONV. STATE OF ILLINOIS (1968) 391 U.S.I0ANDWAINWRIGHTV. WITT (1985) 469 U.S. 412, VIOLATING APPELLANT'S RIGHTS TO A FAIR TRIAL, IMPARTIAL JURY, AS GUARANTEED BY SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS, BY EXCUSING A PROSPECTIVE JURORFOR CAUSE DESPITE HER EXPRESSED WILLINGNESS TO FAIRLY CONSIDER IMPOSING THE DEATH PENALTY 126 A. Appellants Have Not Forfeited This Claim. 126 vii
B. The Trial Court Erred In Excusing Prospective Juror No. 2066 For Cause. 127 XVI THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO BE TRIED BY A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JURY WHEN IT OVERRULED APPELLANTS' CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE AGAINST JUROR NO. 8971 FOR IMPLIED BIAS AND MISCONDUCT 130 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 130 B. The Record Does Not Establish To A Demonstrable Reality That Juror No. 10 Committed Misconduct Warranting Removal 132 1. Aspects ofthe Attorney General's Factual Summary Require Correction 132 2.The Trial Court's Various Restatements OfIts Ruling 136 3. The Trial Court's Reasons For Removing Juror No. 10 Are Not Established To A Demonstrable Reality 140 4. Trivial Violations That Do Not Prejudice the Parties Do Not Require Removal ofa Sitting Juror 143 C. Appellant's Constitutional Claims Are Not Forfeited 144 XVIII THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND VIOLATED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHEN IT DISCHARGED JUROR NO.9 FOR CAUSE 146 A. Introduction And The Chronology OfPenalty Phase Juror Discharges 146 B. The Record Does Not Establish To A Demonstrable Reality That Juror No.9 Was Unable To Perform Her Duty As A Juror 146 C. Appellant's Constitutional Claims Are Not Forfeited 149 V1l1
- Page 2 and 3: TABLE OF CONTENTS APPELLANT WILLIAM
- Page 4 and 5: 2. The Pleadings Failed To NotifY A
- Page 6 and 7: VI THE JURy FAILED TO FIND THE DEGR
- Page 10 and 11: XIII APPELLANT JOINS IN ALL ISSUES
- Page 12 and 13: Mitchell v. Esparza (2003) 540 U.S.
- Page 14 and 15: People v. Cruz (2001) 93 Cal.App.4t
- Page 16 and 17: People v. Scott (1978) 21 Cal. 3d 2
- Page 18 and 19: CALlIC No. 8.31 passim CALJIC No. 8
- Page 20 and 21: ARGUMENTS GUILT PHASE ISSUES I THE
- Page 22 and 23: the facts indicate that only one de
- Page 24 and 25: form finding "personal use" to have
- Page 26 and 27: 57 Cal.AppAth 871, 877; 9 Witkin, C
- Page 28 and 29: the weapon. Without again recountin
- Page 30 and 31: Respondent notes that between the m
- Page 32 and 33: In another apparent attempt to just
- Page 34 and 35: appellant has repeatedly said, the
- Page 37 and 38: not present them to the trial court
- Page 39 and 40: In People v. Knighten (1980) 105 Ca
- Page 41 and 42: Finally, it must be noted that the
- Page 43 and 44: B. The Constitutional Issues Are No
- Page 45 and 46: turn relied on the language from Wi
- Page 47 and 48: Indeed, in this case the instructio
- Page 49 and 50: as the prosecution's first-degree t
- Page 51 and 52: F. Conclusion In summary, by failin
- Page 53 and 54: As appellant explained in the openi
- Page 55 and 56: in the manner suggested by responde
- Page 57 and 58: Furthennore, it is well established
C. Standard OfReview And Prejudice 114<br />
PENALTY PHASE ISSUES 116<br />
XIV THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO INSTRUCT<br />
THE JURY THAT IT WAS REQUIRED TO SET ASIDE<br />
ALL PRIOR DISCUSSIONS RELATING TO PENALTY<br />
AND BEGIN PENALTY DELIBERATIONS ANEW WHEN<br />
TWO JURORS WERE REPLACED BY ALTERNATE JURORS<br />
AFTER THE GUILT VERDICT HAD BEEN REACHED<br />
AND THE PENALTY CASE HAD BEEN TO THE JURY.<br />
THIS ERROR DEPRIVED APPELLANT OF THE RIGHT TO<br />
A JURY DETERMINATION THE PENALTY AND THE RIGHT<br />
TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW 116<br />
A. The Doctrine OfInvited Error Is Not Applicable 116<br />
B. The Flaw In Respondent's Contentions. 118<br />
C. <strong>Appellant</strong> Was Prejudiced By The Failure OfThe Trial Court To<br />
Instruct The Newly Reconstituted Jury To Begin Deliberations<br />
Anew. 120<br />
D. Conclusion 125<br />
XV THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR<br />
UNDER WITHERSPOONV. STATE OF ILLINOIS (1968) 391<br />
U.S.I0ANDWAINWRIGHTV. WITT (1985) 469 U.S. 412,<br />
VIOLATING APPELLANT'S RIGHTS TO A FAIR TRIAL,<br />
IMPARTIAL JURY, AS GUARANTEED BY SIXTH AND<br />
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS, BY EXCUSING A<br />
PROSPECTIVE JURORFOR CAUSE DESPITE HER<br />
EXPRESSED WILLINGNESS TO FAIRLY CONSIDER<br />
IMPOSING THE DEATH PENALTY 126<br />
A. <strong>Appellant</strong>s Have Not Forfeited This Claim. 126<br />
vii
Change language