The case turned on jury selection. The prosecutor struck Prospective Juror 183, a newly graduated nurse, and when defense counsel objected, stated his reason was "because she is a nurse."
The appellate court found the trial court never examined whether nursing qualifies as "employment in a field that is disproportionately occupied by members" of a protected group — a category the statute treats as presumptively invalid grounds for a strike. The court wrote that "part and parcel of a trial court's obligation to evaluate proffered reasons for the exercise of a peremptory challenge is to first make a meaningful inquiry into whether any of the proffered reasons may be presumptively invalid."
During voir dire, the prospective juror had disclosed that her father was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison when she was 13, and that he felt "mistreated" and believed "his trial wasn't fair." She nonetheless affirmed she could be fair and impartial.
The Attorney General argued Espiritu forfeited his right to challenge the presumptive invalidity by not raising it at trial. The court rejected that position, finding that requiring the objecting party to identify presumptive invalidity "would be inconsistent with the detailed process established by the Legislature."
Espiritu was originally arrested in March 2015 but failed to appear for arraignment. The United States Marshals Service delivered him to local law enforcement at Los Angeles International Airport approximately six and a half years later. A jury subsequently convicted him on all counts, and the trial court sentenced him to 26 years in state prison. The appellate court reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial.
The case is People v. Espiritu, No. G063841, in the California Court of Appeal.