The trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion under CCP § 231.7 challenging the prosecutor’s use of a peremptory challenge where the court speculated about what other reasons the prosecutor could have relied on to strike the juror.  The defendant was a Black male. The challenged juror was a Black female and the sole Black juror in the jury box at that time. The prosecutor’s stated reasons for the challenge, which focused on the prospective juror’s attitude, were presumptively invalid under section 231.7(g)(1)(B). The trial court clearly erred under § 231.7(d)(1) when it rejected the prosecutor’s stated reasons and overruled the objection based on reasons the prosecutor never raised.

The court of appeal further found insufficient evidence to support the defendant’s conviction for participation in a criminal street gang as well as the gang enhancements, and held that double jeopardy principles prohibit retrial on those issues. The judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for retrial on the remaining charges.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/D084512.PDF