‘Miller-El [II] thus did not consider whether an appellate court must conduct a comparative juror analysis in the first instance, when the objector has failed to make a prima facie showing of discrimination, or whether an appellate court must conduct a comparative juror analysis for the first time on appeal, when the objector failed to do so at trial.”
How later courts described this case
- ‘Miller-El [II] thus did not consider whether an appellate court must conduct a comparative juror analysis in the first instance, when the objector has failed to make a prima facie showing of discrimination, or whether an appellate court must conduct a comparative juror analysis for the first time on appeal, when the objector failed to do so at trial.”
- skepticism about the fairness of the 26 27 7 Petitioner also suggests the prosecution failed to engage African American jurors in more than pro forma voir dire. (See ECF No. 19-9 at 221.) However, the aforementioned record 28 demonstrates this argument is unsupported. 1 criminal justice system is a valid ground for dismissing a juror
- approving 338-day hiatus between guilt and penalty phases of trial while defendant appealed guilty verdict; hiatus occurred at a natural breaking point
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BAXTER, J., Concurring.
I concur with the majority and have also signed Justice Chin’s concurring opinion. To the extent that People v. Coddington (2000) 23 Cal.4th 529 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 528 , 2 P.3d 1081 ], which I authored, suggests that the work product rule would bar a prosecutor from commenting on the defendant’s failure to call defense experts who had examined forensic evidence relevant to the case, it merits reexamination. (See United States v. Grammer (9th Cir. 1975) 513 F.2d 673, 676 .)