Professor Elisabeth Semel

UC Berkeley School of Law

(510) 701-1212, esemel@law.berkeley.edu

Stephen Munkelt, Executive Director, CACJ

(530) 277-8508, stephen@cacj.org

Prosecutors in Their Own Words:

“Race-Neutral” Reasons Prosecutors Have Given for
Striking Black and Latinx Prospective Jurors1
(1) EXPERIENCE WITH AND VIEWS ABOUT LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INJUSTICE
A Los Angeles County prosecutor struck a Black juror because he had been, in the juror’s
own words, “‘detained for being in the wrong part of town while black.’”2

In a 2013 case, a Contra Costa County prosecutor explained that she struck a Black juror
because of his 1962 “‘experience with a police officer . . . [who the juror] thought . . . was
being racist,’” although the juror made it clear that this event was “‘in the past.’”3

An Alameda County prosecutor struck a Black juror because, according to the prosecutor,
the juror would not be willing to follow the law since “‘she hopes the system is fair but it
does need some overhaul when it comes to minorities being arrested and jailed more than
non-minorities, especially in reference to drugs.’”4

In a Los Angeles County case, a prosecutor struck a Black juror because the juror may
have struggled “‘to determine whether [the defendant] is guilty or not’” since the juror saw
“‘flaws’” in the criminal legal system, such as better outcomes for wealthy criminal
defendants.5

In yet another Los Angeles County case, a prosecutor excluded a Black juror because the
juror described her husband’s arrest when he was a minor as a “‘victim of [police]
decision.’” The prosecutor explained, “‘I feel that shows a bias.’”6

A San Joaquin County prosecutor struck a Black juror because the juror stated that he had
been “‘falsely accused’” and spent four months in jail, which, according to the prosecutor
and despite the juror’s assertion otherwise, “‘gave him a lot of empathy and . . . sympathy
for . . . [the] defendant.’”7

In a 2005 Alameda County trial, a prosecutor excluded a Black juror who expressed
dislike for a particular law enforcement officer who had ticketed her for running a stop
sign in 1982.8
1
Excerpts from E. SEMEL, D. DOWNARD, E. TOLMAN, A. WEIS, D. CRAIG, C. HANLOCK, WHITEWASHING THE JURY
BOX: HOW CALIFORNIA PERPETUATES THE DISCRIMINATORY EXCLUSION OF BLACK AND LATINX JURORS (Berkeley
Law Death Penalty Clinic, 2020).
2
People v. Brooks, No. B283558, 2018 WL 3153552, at *4 (Cal. Ct. App. June 28, 2018).
3
People v. Fuller, No. A143419, 2017 WL 1131822, at *7-8 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 27, 2017).
4
People v. Edwards, No. A139460, 2018 WL 2426168, at *6 (Cal. Ct. App. May 30, 2018).
5
People v. Austin, No. B266558, 2018 WL 2011470, at *9 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2018).
6
People v. Garcia, No. B231949, 2012 WL 3538984, at *5 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2012).
7
People v. Dungo, No. C055923, 2013 WL 4494710, at *5 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2013).
8
People v. Jenkins, No. A109403, 2006 WL 3042944, at *12 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 27, 2006).

1
Another Alameda County prosecutor struck a Black juror because he was slouching,
pursuing a criminal justice degree, believed the criminal legal system was unbalanced,
and cited the events in Ferguson, Missouri to explain why he no longer wanted to be a
police officer.9

(2) FAMILY MEMBERS WHO HAVE HAD CONTACT WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT
In a Los Angeles County case, a prosecutor struck six of the nine Black jurors he ultimately
removed because each had family members who had been convicted of a crime or were
in prison.10

In an Alameda County case, the prosecutor explained that she struck a Black juror
because the prosecutor believed that the juror could not be fair “‘in light of the fact that
her family members all have had dealings with the Oakland Police Department.’”11

In a Sacramento County case, the prosecutor struck a Black juror because he had visited
his two siblings when they were incarcerated.12

In another Sacramento County case, a prosecutor excluded a Black juror because she
reported in her questionnaire that her “son had been in jail for unlawful driving or taking
of a vehicle,” but noted that he had “‘done wrong and had to serve time.’”13

In another Alameda County trial, a prosecutor removed a Black juror because, according
to the prosecutor, the juror stated that “‘a number of her family members were involved in
crimes and that she doesn’t deal with them.’” The prosecutor said, “‘I find that kind of
hard to believe that even if it were true.’”14

(3) NEIGHBORHOOD
A prosecutor in Alameda County said that she struck a Black juror because the juror
“appeared desensitized to violence, based on the fact she lived in East Oakland and had
been burglarized 15 times.”15

9
People v. Tabron, No. A144079, 2018 WL 6426375, at *6 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2018).
10
People v. Sullivan, No. B216780, 2011 WL 1549702, at *3-6 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2011).
11
People v. Jordan, 146 Cal. App. 4th 232, 239-40, 242 (2006). The Oakland Police
Department had arrested the juror’s brother at least five times, her sister two or three times, and
her son at least once. Id.
12
People v. Thomas, No. C068672, 2012 WL 6604993, at *3 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2012).
13
People v. Jones, No. C058674, 2009 WL 1177055, at *1-2 (Cal. Ct. App. May 4, 2009).
14
People v. Winters, No. A122443, 2010 WL 2691622, at *4-5 (Cal. Ct. App. July 8, 2010).
15
People v. Ivey, No. A120368, 2009 WL 1668994, at *3 (Cal. Ct. App. June 15, 2009).

2
In a Los Angeles County case, the prosecutor struck a Black juror because the prosecutor
found it “incredible” that she lived in South Central Los Angeles but had no contact with
gang members.16

A Los Angeles County prosecutor removed a Black juror because he was raised around
gangs in Compton.17

(4) DRESS OR APPEARANCE

A Los Angeles County prosecutor explained that she struck a Black juror because his
dreadlocks touched the floor, which made him incompatible with a “‘cohesive group . . .
of the same, kind of fall into societal norms.’”18

A Sacramento County prosecutor struck one Black juror because “‘he was wearing
dreadlocks. And it’s my understanding . . . that dreadlocks are somewhat associated with a
Reggae culture . . . [that] promotes drug use . . . in general.’”19

A Los Angeles County prosecutor said that she struck a Black juror because the juror had
“‘extraordinarily long pink fingernails’ and braided hair” and therefore was likely “‘fairly
liberal.’”20

Another Los Angeles County prosecutor exercised a peremptory challenge against a Black
woman because “‘she was wearing a very short skirt, 12-inch earrings, and had on these
sandals that were blinged out with . . . at least 100 cubic zirconia on each one.’”21

A Riverside County prosecutor struck a Black juror because he was wearing dollar sign
diamond earrings.22

In a 2015 Los Angeles County case, a prosecutor struck a Latino juror because of his “‘big
lobe earrings. . . .’” The prosecutor said, “‘[I]t is almost like somebody walking in . . . with
their pants falling down and showing their underwear.’”23

A Contra Costa County prosecutor struck two Latino jurors based on their appearance—
one because he wore “‘a large earring’” and had “‘a goatee,’” and the other because he
had “‘extremely long, curly hair.’”24

16
People v. Nino, No. B221514, 2011 WL 5314895, at *3 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 7, 2011).
17
People v. Cox, 187 Cal. App. 4th 337, 347-48 (2010).
18
People v. Harris, No. B223174, 2011 WL 925723, at *8 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 18, 2011).
19
People v. Duncan, No. C049739, 2006 WL 3480375, at *2 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 4, 2006).
20
People v. Davis, No. B259412, 2016 WL 3960036, at *4 (Cal. Ct. App. July 21, 2016)
21
People v. Crosby, No. B251779, 2015 WL 340803, at *16 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2015).
22
People v. Jamison, No. E041904, 2008 WL 2933867, at *8 (Cal. Ct. App. July 31, 2008).
23
People v. Moya, No. B264683, 2018 WL 1081909, at *10 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2018).
24
People v. Barajas, No. A137263, 2014 WL 49856, at *1-2 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 7, 2014).

3
In a 2011 Santa Clara County case, a prosecutor gave a Latino juror’s attire as a reason:
‘[He] was wearing long shorts. Hanging out of . . . one of the shorts pockets was a red San
Francisco 49ers lanyard, which is the type of lanyard you see being handed out in San
Jose by the bail bonds people as a free gift . . . He had long white tube socks on pulled up
to his knees and Nike Cortez sneakers on, which I know to be attire of somebody who is a
gang member.’25

A San Mateo County prosecutor struck a Latina juror for her “youthful and untraditional
appearance, which included blue nail polish and very torn jeans.”26

(5) DEMEANOR
A Los Angeles County prosecutor struck three Latinx jurors because one seemed “unsure
of herself,” another had a “strong, aggressive personality,” and the other “was anti-social
and withdrawn.”27

A San Bernardino prosecutor struck four of the six Latinx jurors he challenged because
one talked and thought “slow,” another was “‘very timid,’” the third did not “appear ‘too
bright,’” and the last was “‘very timid’ . . . and also lacked intelligence.”28

In another Los Angeles County trial, a prosecutor excused a Black juror because she “‘felt
that he just wasn’t that bright.’”29

A Riverside County prosecutor struck a Black juror who he described as “‘very defensive,
because she had her arms crossed, and . . . seemed a little hostile by her body
language.’”30

A Fresno County prosecutor struck a Latina juror because she “did not seem very friendly
or communicative.”31

In an Orange County case, the prosecutor said that she struck the Latina juror because he
“‘didn’t like her,’” and described her as “‘flippant’” and someone who spoke “‘like a
Valley Girl or like a teenager.’”32

25
People v. Vale, No. H037358, 2013 WL 5278501, at *3 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 19, 2013).
26
People v. Martinez, No. A134714, 2013 WL 3777125, at *3 (Cal. Ct. App. July 18, 2013).
27
People v. Jiminez, No. B279690, 2018 WL 1616735, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 4, 2018).
28
People v. Tonga, No. E054683, 2013 WL 32143, at *5-7 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 3, 2013).
29
People v. Jones, No. B197793, 2008 WL 4060941, at *5 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 3, 2008).
30
People v. Jamison, No. E041904, 2008 WL 2933867, at *7 (Cal. Ct. App. July 31, 2008).
31
People v. Deanda, No. F072163, 2018 WL 2148288, at *6 (Cal. Ct. App. May 10, 2018).
32
People v. Medina, No. G043130, 2011 WL 4091493, at *6 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 15, 2011).