California v. Jaime
Annotate this CaseRecognizing the limitations of the Batson/Wheeler inquiry, the California Legislature enacted Assembly Bill No. 3070 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) to add Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7, which created new procedures for identifying unlawful discrimination in the use of peremptory challenges. Jury selection for the trial of defendant Moises Jamie Jaime (for two counts of transporting controlled substances and two counts of possessing controlled substances for sale) began two months after section 231.7 became applicable. A prospective juror ("L.") asked to speak privately with the court and parties. In a private hearing, L. disclosed that her “cousin was actually convicted of murder in this court” and that the current district attorney spoke to her class when she was a child and “ended up bringing up [her] cousin’s trial in class before it had gone to trial.” She further disclosed that she spoke with a lawyer about the district attorney’s conduct. The prosecutor later exercised a peremptory challenge against L. After a jury found defendant guilty on all four counts, the trial court placed defendant on two years of formal probation. On appeal, defendant’s principal argument was that the Court of Appeal had to reverse the judgment and remand the case for a new trial because the State's peremptory challenge was presumptively invalid under section 231.7 and the State offered no evidence to overcome that presumption. The Court determined the prosecutor provided no evidence to rebut the presumptively invalid reasons for exercising the peremptory challenge, and the trial court prejudicially erred by allowing it. Judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for a new trial.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.