Split state high court says juror mistake in death case was unintentional

The state Supreme Court ruled 5-2 Thursday that a juror who had not disclosed her childhood abuse in a pretrial questionnaire was not biased against a multiple murderer who argued his own traumatic youth in mitigation because the omission was unintentional.

A juror referred to as C.B. admitted in post-trial examination she found the petitioner's mitigating evidence -- that he had been severely abused while growing up on a ranch in Mexico -- a detriment because she also grew up on a farm where she was raped, beaten and used for slave labor but did not turn to a life of crime, according to the opinion written by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye for the majority.

The juror was quoted as saying in post-trial proceedings, "Having been through abuse myself, I do not view abuse as an excuse." In re Manriquez, 2018 DJDAR 7343 (Cal. July 26, 2018).

C.B., who ended up serving as the jury forewoman, reported during the jury selection process that she had not been a victim of a crime, had never been present during a violent act, and had never been in a situation where she feared being hurt or killed.

Petitioner Abelino Manriquez was sentenced to death in 1993 after the jury convicted him of four counts of first degree murder with the special circumstance of multiple murder. The prosecution also presented evidence of Manriquez's involvement in three additional killings and that he had raped a friend's babysitter at gunpoint.

Explaining the opinion, Cantil-Sakauye wrote that a test established by a 1999 case "asks not whether the juror would have been stricken by one of the parties, but whether the juror's concealment (or nondisclosure) evidences bias." The Hamilton test puts greatest emphasis on whether the juror intentionally or unintentionally concealed or omitted information. In re Hamilton, 20 Cal. 4th 273, 300 (1999).

In this case, the majority found credible juror C.B.'s explanation that the violence she experienced as a child did not come to mind until the sentencing portion of the trial -- and that she did not believe herself to be a victim per se. In hindsight, C.B. said she should have answered the pretrial questions differently but answered truthfully given her state of mind at the time.

Elizabeth Loftus, a law professor and cognitive psychologist noted for her work on eyewitness testimony, agreed it's plausible C.B. did not immediately recall her past trauma while filling out the questionnaire. Given C.B.'s post-trial admissions, "she probably had a whole lot of unpleasant things happen to her and might not have kept at the forefront of her memory each and every one of them," said Loftus, a professor at UC Irvine School of Law and a Distinguished Professor of Psychology and Social Behavior.

John Mills, an adjunct professor at UC Hastings College of the Law and attorney at the Phillips Black Project, where he represents death-sentenced prisoners, said he took issue with the decision.

"What I find troubling about the case is its willingness to ignore the obvious impact on the verdict the juror's experience had," Mill said.

In his dissent, Justice Goodwin Liu suggested the same: "There is substantial likelihood -- in light of juror C.B.'s own account of how she approached this case -- that her predetermined mindset based on her childhood experiences prevented her from giving individualized consideration to the childhood abuse evidence actually presented in this case. This alone requires reversal of penalty judgment."

Liu, in a seeming break from the majority's reading of Hamilton, said by omitting information, willfully or not, C.B. did not give defense counsel their rightful opportunity to question her about her abusive childhood and likely disqualify her.