IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CAPITAL CASE CALIFORNIA, No. S171393 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DON’TE LAMONT MCDANIEL, Defendant and Appellant. 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 ERWIN CHEMERINSKY DIRECTOR, DEAN DEATH PENALTY CLINIC (ADMITTED IN ILLINOIS AND (SBN 67484) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA) U.C. Berkeley School of Law U.C. Berkeley School of Law Berkeley, CA 94720-7200 Berkeley, CA 94720-7200 [email protected] [email protected] Telephone: 510-642-0458 Telephone: 510-642-6483 Facsimile: 510-643-4625 Facsimile: 510-642-9893 Document received by the CA Supreme Court. Attorneys for Proposed Amicus Curiae THE HON. GAVIN NEWSOM 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 Document received by the CA Supreme Court. DISCRIMINATION AND ARBITRARINESS IN CAPITAL SENTENCING. ..................................................................................... 57 2 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 Document received by the CA Supreme Court. 3 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 Document received by the CA Supreme Court. People v. Jurado, 38 Cal. 4th 72 (2006) ......................................... 54 People v. Lenix, 44 Cal. 4th 602 (2008) .......................................... 54 4 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., https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml? 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 Document received by the CA Supreme Court. Cal. Elec. Code, § 2101 ................................................... 47 5 Cal. Penal Code, §§ 190.2(a) ................................................... 29 190.3 ................................................... 51 1042 ............................................. 21, 76 S. 310, 2019-2020 Leg., Reg. Sess., 2019 Cal. Stat. 5237, 5238 (approved by Governor, Oct. 8, 2019, ch. 591) (to be codified at Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 203), http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?b ill_id=201920200SB31 ........................................................... 47 S. 592, 2019-2020 Leg., Reg. Sess. (approved by Governor, Sept. 28, 2020, ch. 230, sec. 1, § 197(b)(2)) (to be codified at Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 197(b)(2)), https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xh tml?bill_id=201920200SB592 ............................................... 48 S.C.A. No. 24, 1995-1996 Leg., Reg. Sess. ................................ 60-63 State Legislative Materials Assemb. Comm. on Pub. Safety, Bill Analysis: A.C.A. No. 18, 1995-1996 Leg.,