P.

P. v. Bautista CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 20, 2013C069652California2,363 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

Given the nature of defendant‟s claims on appeal, we dispense with a detailed recital of the underlying facts and instead focus on jury selection, specifically, the prosecutor‟s peremptory challenge of prospective juror P.S.

Jury Questionnaire

During the jury selection process, prospective jurors were given a 77-question questionnaire. In response to the jury questionnaire, P.S. stated she was employed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation as a hospice social worker and worked in the compassionate release advocacy program conducting medical parole workups. She also maintained a private therapy practice. She had lived in San Joaquin County for five years.

2 Question 18 asked whether she had any training in psychiatry, psychology or medicine. P.S. responded “yes,” explaining she was a “Licensed Clinical Social Worker in Corrections,” and that she was a “Certified Correctional Health Care Professional for medical treatment „constitutional level of care‟ to inmate population.” In response to Question 35, which asked whether she could keep an open mind throughout the trial, P.S. responded she could and that “Every one [sic] deserves a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.