The California Court of Appeal reversed the conviction of Jose Gerardo Espiritu and ordered a new trial in a case involving forcible rape, forcible copulation, and forcible sodomy against a 16-year-old victim.

The reversal centered on jury selection, where the prosecutor exercised a peremptory challenge against Prospective Juror 183, a newly graduated nurse. When defense counsel objected under Code of Civil Procedure Section 231.7, the prosecutor stated his reason was "because she is a nurse."

The appellate court determined that the trial court failed to consider whether nursing falls under the statute's presumptively invalid category for "employment in a field that is disproportionately occupied by members" of protected groups. 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."

Espiritu was originally arrested in March 2015 but failed to appear for arraignment. The United States Marshal Service delivered Espiritu to local law enforcement at Los Angeles International Airport approximately six and a half years later, and criminal proceedings resumed.

During voir dire, the prospective nurse 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." Despite this disclosure, she affirmed she could be fair and impartial.

The Attorney General argued that Espiritu forfeited his right to challenge the presumptive invalidity by failing to raise it in the trial court, but the appellate court rejected this position. The court explained that requiring the objecting party to identify presumptive invalidity "would be inconsistent with the detailed process established by the Legislature."

The trial court had sentenced Espiritu to 26 years in state prison after the jury found him guilty on all counts.

*Note: This report is based on an incomplete court document that appears to cut off mid-analysis. The case citation shows a 2026 filing date, which may indicate a data processing error.*