Reported / Citable
Background
A prosecutor used a peremptory challenge to remove prospective juror S.M. and gave several reasons, including that S.M. appeared less engaged and attentive than other jurors. The defense objected under Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7, California’s newer framework for identifying discriminatory juror strikes.
The trial judge confirmed the prosecutor’s observation and allowed the strike without requiring an explanation of why the observed behavior mattered to the case. The Court of Appeal affirmed, treating the confirmed inattention as enough to overcome the statute’s presumption against demeanor-based reasons and to establish that the strike was lawful.
The Court’s Holding
The California Supreme Court reversed. When a lawyer relies on demeanor, behavior, or the manner of answering questions, merely confirming that the behavior occurred is not enough. The lawyer must explain what the behavior suggests about the prospective juror’s ability to serve and why it matters to the case, so the judge can evaluate whether an objective observer would view protected status as a factor in the strike.
The Court also separated two inquiries that lower courts had blended together. A valid demeanor-based reason does not automatically make a strike lawful, and an invalid reason does not mechanically end the analysis. The judge must consider every stated reason and the surrounding circumstances in deciding whether there is a substantial likelihood that race or another protected characteristic played a role.
Key Takeaways
- A lawyer relying on eye contact, attentiveness, tone, or similar behavior must connect the observation to juror performance in the particular case.
- The trial judge must do more than confirm that the behavior occurred; the record must permit meaningful evaluation of the lawyer’s motivation.
- Courts must assess all reasons and circumstances under the statute’s objective-observer standard.
- Trial lawyers should make a complete, case-specific record at the moment a section 231.7 objection is litigated.
Why It Matters
This is the Supreme Court’s first interpretation of section 231.7 and gives trial courts a practical framework for one of the statute’s most sensitive areas. California litigators can no longer assume that a judge’s agreement with a subjective demeanor observation will save a strike.
The decision should produce fuller records and more searching review of peremptory challenges in criminal and civil trials. It also warns counsel that facially plausible explanations remain part of a broader discrimination inquiry rather than a safe harbor.