On Monday, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction and death penalty in People v. Deen for the 1998 murders of the defendant’s mother and a police chief. The cause of the reversal was the superior court’s erroneous ruling on a defense challenge for cause of a juror who had worked for the police department and had known, and had socialized with, the chief.
The court’s opinion by Justice Corrigan takes a detailed look at the relationship between implied and actual juror biases (Code Civ. Proc., sections 225, 229) and concludes the superior court improperly made the “challenging” assessment “whether a prospective juror can and will be fair to both sides, judge the case based solely on the evidence presented, and follow the law as instructed by the court.” The superior court judge had said he was “ ‘stuck with’ ” the prospective juror’s statement that he could be fair and set aside his feelings, but the Supreme Court held the trial court “failed to consider the full scope of its authority” and “understood its role and its responsibility too narrowly.”
The court also quoted approvingly from a 1910 Court of Appeal opinion: “ ‘If the trial judge is, from the examination of the juror, or other evidence, doubtful as to whether or not the juror can and will discard his opinion, and fairly and impartially try the case, he should resolve such doubt against the juror and excuse him.’ ”
All seven justices, including two pro tems (in place of recused Chief Justice Guerrero and retired Justice Jenkins), signed the court’s opinion, but Justice Groban — joined by Justices Liu and Evans — separately concurred to highlight an issue the court could face in the future. The Deen defendant, Groban reported, had severe mental illness from a young age, which didn’t disqualify him from a death sentence even though the U.S. Supreme Court has held that intellectually disabled and juveniles cannot be executed. “But the time will come,” he wrote, “when we need to determine whether executing someone who is psychotic or schizophrenic or hears voices offends ‘ “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” ’ ”
