Document received by the CA Supreme Court.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff and Respondent, v.

DON'TE LAMONT MCDANIEL, Defendant and Appellant.

CAPITAL CASE No. S171393

Document received by the CA Supreme Court.

PROPOSED BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE THE HONORABLE GAVIN NEWSOM IN SUPPORT OF

DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT MCDANIEL

Appeal from Judgment of The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Case No. TA074274

The Honorable Robert J. Perry, Presiding

* ELISABETH SEMEL DIRECTOR, DEATH PENALTY CLINIC (SBN 67484) U.C. Berkeley School of Law Berkeley, CA 94720-7200 esemel@law.berkeley.edu Telephone: 510-642-0458 Facsimile: 510-643-4625

ERWIN CHEMERINSKY DEAN (ADMITTED IN ILLINOIS AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA) U.C. Berkeley School of Law Berkeley, CA 94720-7200 echemerinsky@law.berkeley.edu Telephone: 510-642-6483 Facsimile: 510-642-9893

Attorneys for Proposed Amicus Curiae THE HON. GAVIN NEWSOM

Document received by the CA Supreme Court.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROPOSED BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE.................................... 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................... 2

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .............................................................. 4 INTRODUCTION............................................................................. 21

ARGUMENT..................................................................................... 23 I. THE CALIFORNIA JURY RIGHT SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE CONTEXT OF THE HISTORICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RACISM AND CAPITAL PUNISHMENT...................................................................................... 23 A. California Continues to Impose the Death Penalty Despite Compelling Evidence of Racial Discrimination in its Administration. ...................................................................................23 B. Capital Punishment in the United States Is Rooted in the Legacy of Slavery, Racial Terror, and Subjugation.........................31 C. The Historical and Present-Day Experiences of African Americans with the Criminal Justice System Are Relevant to Understanding Their Disproportionate Removal from Capital Juries. ..................................................................................................37 1. The history and present-day administration of the criminal justice system is racially discriminatory. .....................................37 2. As a result of historical and present-day discrimination, Black Americans and White Americans tend to have significantly different views of the criminal justice and capital punishment systems. ......................................................................42 D. The Selection of California Jury Venires Perpetuates the Underrepresentation of African Americans. ....................................44 E. Death Qualification Dilutes African Americans' Viewpoints and Produces Juries that Are Conviction- and Death-Prone and Likely to Be Influenced by Racial Bias.............................................49 F. The Batson/Wheeler Regime Exacerbates the Racially Discriminatory Effects of Death Qualification. ...............................53 II. REQUIRING UNANIMITY AND PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT WILL REDUCE RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AND ARBITRARINESS IN CAPITAL SENTENCING. ..................................................................................... 57

2

Document received by the CA Supreme Court.

A. Non-Unanimous Jury Verdicts Entrench White Control of the Jury Box. .............................................................................................57

1. Louisiana's and Oregon's non-unanimous jury rules were designed to nullify black jury service mandated by the Reconstruction Amendments. ........................................................57 2. Attacks on California's unanimity requirement were racially motivated attempts to suppress minority voices in jury deliberations. ...................................................................................60 B. Unanimity Requirement Would Reduce Racial Discrimination in Death Sentencing. ..........................................................................66 1. Diverse juries diminish the influence of racial bias in capital sentencing. .......................................................................................67 2. Unanimity improves the quality and reliability of the deliberative process. .......................................................................69 C. A Reasonable Doubt Requirement for the Life-or-Death Verdict Would Also Reduce Racial Bias in Capital Sentencing. ....72 1. As a general proposition, rules increasing clarity help prevent racially biased behaviors..................................................72 2. A reasonable doubt standard provides clarity, thereby reducing jurors' reliance on racial stereotypes. ...........................74 CONCLUSION ................................................................................. 76 ATTACHMENT A ............................................................................ 77 ATTACHMENT B .......................................................................... 163 CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL..................................................... 171 DECLARATION OF SERVICE .................................................... 172

3

Document received by the CA Supreme Court.

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Federal Cases Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) .................................... 53-56 Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162 (2005) ................................... 53 Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162 (1987) ....................................... 50 McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987) ....................................... 32 Norris v. Alabama, 294 U.S. 587 (1935) ................................... 44-45 Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (2020) .......................... passim Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1879) ............................ 44 Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975) ...................................... 45

State Cases Hovey v. Superior Court, 28 Cal. 3d 1 (1980) ................................ 50 In re Perkins, 2 Cal. 424 (1852) ...................................................... 34 People v. Armstrong, 6 Cal. 5th 735 (2019) ................................... 54 People v. Bryant, 40 Cal. App. 5th 525 (2019) ............................... 56 People v. Harris, 57 Cal. 4th 804 (2013) ........................................ 42 People v. Hensley, 59 Cal. 4th 788 (2014) ...................................... 54 People v. Hillhouse, 27 Cal. 4th 469 (2002) ................................... 51 People v. Hines, 12 Cal. 2d 535 (1939) ...................................... 45-46 People v. Johnson, 8 Cal. 5th 475 (2019) ................................. 42, 56 People v. Jurado, 38 Cal. 4th 72 (2006) ......................................... 54 People v. Lenix, 44 Cal. 4th 602 (2008) .......................................... 54

4

Document received by the CA Supreme Court.

People v. Lomax, 49 Cal. 4th 530 (2010) ........................................ 54 People v. Manibusan, 58 Cal. 4th 40 (2013) .................................. 54 People v. Melendez, 2 Cal. 5th 1 (2016) .......................................... 54 People v. Miles, 9 Cal. 5th 513 (2020) ............................................ 56 People v. Ross, 134 Cal. 256 (1901)................................................. 37 People v. Suarez, 10 Cal. 5th 116 (2020) ........................................ 49 People v. Triplett, 48 Cal. App. 5th 655 (2020)........................ 37, 43 People v. Welch, 49 Cal. 174 (1874) ................................................ 36 People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal. 3d 256 (1978)................................... 53-54 People v. Williams, 56 Cal. 4th 630 (2013) .................................... 54 State v. Gregory, 427 P.3d 621, 627 (Wash. 2018) ........................ 24

Constitutional Provisions

Cal. Const., art. I, ??

3 ............................................................ 21

16 ................................................ 21, 60, 76

State Statutes and Bills

A.B. 3070, 2019-2020 Leg., Reg. Sess., ? bill_id=201920200AB3070 ............................................... 55-56

A.C.A. No. 18, 1995-1996 Leg., Reg. Sess. ..........................61-62, 64

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code, ? 197(a)-(b) ................................................... 46

Cal. Elec. Code,

? 2101 ................................................... 47

5

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download