People v. Gomez CA3

DISCUSSION

Defendant asserts her jury waiver was not knowingly and intelligently made because: (1) the trial court did not advise her that she could participate in jury selection through counsel or that the 12 jurors would have had to reach a unanimous decision; (2) neither the trial court nor defense counsel advised her that the trial court would consider defendant’s husband’s full confession, which incriminated her; and (3) defendant had no prior significant experience with the criminal justice system. The People argue the record shows defendant validly waived her right to a jury trial based on her discussions with counsel, the trial court’s clarifying advisement and questions, and defendant’s active participation in her defense. The People further argue that defendant’s reliance on Jones is misplaced, and her argument regarding evidentiary matters pertaining to her husband’s statements does not inform whether her jury waiver was valid. (People v. Jones (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 420.) We conclude, based on the totality of the circumstances, defendant’s jury trial waiver was made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to a jury…