In Re Seiterle

In this habeas corpus application, petitioner David Jacob Seiterle, presently under sentence of death after conviction of two counts of first degree murder and two counts of kidnaping for the purpose of robbery with-bodily *700 harm, 1 contends that under the rule of Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968) 391 U.S. 510 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 776 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 ], the trial court erroneously excused for cause a venireman who was conscientiously opposed to capital punishment. The voir dire examination of the prospective jurors reveals that such an error occurred. Accordingly, under compulsion of Wither-spoon the judgment must be reversed insofar us it relates to penalty.

The following colloquy transpired between the trial court and prospective juror Mrs. Bernice Prestwood:

Defense counsel stated that he had no questions, and the court granted a challenge for cause by the prosecutor.

We agree with petitioner that the trial court’s exclusion for cause of Mrs. Prestwood violated the rule of Wither-spoon because her statements did not make it “unmistakably clear . . . that [she] would automatically vote against the imposition of capital punishment without regard to any evidence that might be developed…

I dissent. Seiterle contends that it was error under Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 776 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 ], to exclude for cause veniremen Cody and Prestwood. However, venireman Cody was properly excluded because her responses made it “unmistakably clear . . . that [she] would automatically vote against the imposition of capital punishment without regard to any evidence that might be developed at the trial. ...” (Witherspoon v. Illinois, supra, at p. 522, fn. 21 [ 20 L.Ed.2d at p. 785 ].) 1 The voir dire examination of venireman Prestwood is as follows:

Defense counsel stated that he had no questions, and the court then granted a challenge for cause by the prosecutor.

Isolating these few questions and answers from the several days of voir dire examination which preceded them and considering them alone could give rise to doubt whether there was Witherspoon error in excusing venireman Prestwood for cause without further questioning. However, when the questions and answers are considered in context with the previous voir dire examination and rulings of the court, then ‘.-an be no reasonable doubt that the court did not violate Wither-spoon in excluding her.

That…

In this habeas corpus application, petitioner David Jacob Seiterle, presently under sentence of death after conviction of two counts of first degree murder and two counts of kidnaping for the purpose of robbery with bodily harm, [1] contends that under the rule of Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968) 391 U.S. 510 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 776 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 ], the trial court erroneously excused for cause a venireman who was conscientiously opposed to capital punishment. The voir dire examination of the prospective jurors reveals that such an error occurred. Accordingly, under compulsion of Witherspoon the judgment must be reversed insofar as it relates to penalty.

The following colloquy transpired between the trial court and prospective juror Mrs. Bernice Prestwood:

"Q. Is there anything about the nature of this case, Mrs. Prestwood, that would prevent your serving fairly and impartially to the defendant as well as to the People of the State of California?

"A. Yes.

"Q. And what is that, Mrs. Prestwood?

"A. I don't agree with the death penalty.

"Q. Do you have such conscientious scruples against the death penalty and its imposition that you feel you could not serve fairly and…