Opposition to Motion to Sequester the Jury

FILED

SAN MATEO COUNTY

FEB 11 2004

Clerk of the Superior Court

By /signature/

Deputy Clerk

JAMES C. BRAZELTON

District Attorney

Stanislaus County Courthouse
Modesto, California

Telephone: 525-5550
Attorney for Plaintiff

SAN MATEO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

D.A. No.1056770
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Plaintiff,
vs.
SCOTT LEE PETERSON,
Defendant.

No. SC55500

(Stan. Co. #1056770)

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SEQUESTER THE JURY

Trial:  2-9-04

Time:  9:00a.m.

Dept: 42 (2M)

Come now the People of the State of California to submit the following OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEQUESTER THE JURY:

Law

The defense has requested that this court sequester the jury in this case.  Penal Code §1121 allows the court, at its discretion, to decide if jurors should be sequestered.  This was affirmed in People v. Gallego, (1991) 52 Cal.3d 115.  Another court has rejected the same argument being made by the defendant here:

"Additionally, it is clearly the Legislature's prerogative to enact trial procedures such as are embodied in sections 1121 and 1128, and, once it has done so, neither this nor any court may substitute its judgment for that of the Legislature, in the absence of a constitutional violaton.  (People v. Dillon (1983)

Although defendant contends that sequestration of the jury in capital cases is a constitutional right, i.e., required by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, he cites no express authority for that proposition.  [FN21]

FN21.  The federal courts which have addressed this issue have refused to recognize any federal constitutional right to have the jury sequestered.  (See, e.g., Powell v. Spalding (9th Cir. 1982) 679 F.2d 163, 166, fn. 3; Young v. State of Alabama (5th Cir. 1971) 443 F.2d 854, 856, cert. den. 405 U.S. 976 (1972).)"

People v. Bunyard (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1189, 1219-1220.

It is clear from the state of the law that sequestering of the jury is not required.  It is within this court's discretion to decide to do so or not.  The People are opposed to doing so, because of the great toll it would take on the jurors.  To keep jurors away from their lives for months on end is not a wise choice.

The law is also clear that all of the defendant's concerns can be laid to rest by continuous and strong admonitions to the jury.  This way, the jurors are allowed to separate, the defendant suffers no harm and both sides are able to have a jury that concentrates on the evidence and not on when they will get to return home.

Conclusion

The People submit that this court should exercise its discretion and deny the defendant's request to sequester the jury.

Dated 2-10-04

Respectfully submitted,

JAMES G. BRAZELTON

Stanislaus County District Attorney

/signature/

David P. Harris

Sr. Deputy District Attorney

PROOF OF SERVICE BY FAX

Re:  People v. Scott Lee Peterson  No. SC55500 (Stan.Co.#1056770)

I, the undersigned, am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within above-entitled action.  On February 10, 2004, I served the within OPPOSIITON TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEQUESTER THE JURY by faxing a true copy thereof to the fax numbers:

Mark Geragos

350 S. Grand Avenue, #3900

Los Angeles, CA 90071

(213) 625-1600

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Dated:  /signature/  2/10/04