State Supreme Court tosses death sentence over judge’s error

The state Supreme Court upheld a Stockton man’s conviction for a 1999 murder and robbery Monday but overturned his death sentence because the trial judge removed a prospective juror who said she was morally opposed to the death penalty but believed she could set her views aside.

Although all jurors in capital cases must be willing to vote for a death sentence, “a prospective juror’s conscientious objection to capital punishment is not by itself a sufficient basis for excluding that person from jury service,” Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar said in the 7-0 ruling.

The ruling entitles the defendant, Louis Zaragoza, to a penalty retrial in which a new jury would decide whether he should be sentenced to death or life in prison without parole.

The victim, David Gaines, 36, was fatally shot while chasing a man who had grabbed a paper bag from the hands of Gaines’ father, William, in front of their Stockton home in June 1999. The bag usually contained the day’s receipts from the Gaines’ liquor store, but on this day it held only a Pyrex bottle, the court said.

Judge with judge's gavel. Judge with judge's gavel. Photo: / STOCK XCHANGE Photo: / STOCK XCHANGE Image 1 of / 1 Caption Close State Supreme Court tosses death sentence over judge’s error 1 / 1 Back to Gallery

Witnesses identified the thief as Zaragoza’s brother, David, who was ruled mentally incompetent to stand trial. A San Joaquin County jury found that Louis Zaragoza was waiting nearby and shot David Gaines as he chased the thief with a canister of Mace.

The state’s high court unanimously rejected defense challenges to Zaragoza’s convictions but said Superior Court Judge Thomas Teaford had wrongly removed a prospective juror, based solely on her answers to a pretrial questionnaire.

Asked whether she had any religious or other personal convictions that would interfere with her ability to take part in a capital case, the woman said she did, and explained, “Don’t feel I have the right to decide if a person is to die.” Asked later whether her beliefs would have a substantial impact on her decision as a juror, she wrote, “Somewhat.”

But later in the questionnaire, she wrote that she would not automatically vote to acquit Zaragoza or sentence him to life in prison to avoid a death sentence. Asked if she could set her feelings aside and follow the law as the judge explained it, she said she could.

Over a defense lawyer’s objections, Teaford granted the prosecutor’s request to dismiss the juror “for cause,” saying her written answers showed “a substantial impairment” in her “ability to be neutral.” But Cuéllar said her answers, considered together, did not clearly show that she was unwilling or unable to follow the law.

Under established court precedents, Cuéllar said, a trial judge must allow such a juror to remain on the panel and answer questions that might clarify her views. If she showed a willingness to follow the judge’s instructions, the prosecution could then use one of its limited number of challenges to remove her.

The case is People vs. Zaragoza, S097886.

Bob Egelko is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: begelko@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @egelko

Read the ruling: www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S097886.PDF