Error and/or relief
The defendant’s jury trial waiver was invalid as it was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. We reverse his convictions on this basis and remand for a new trial.
First Holding:
A criminal defendant has the constitutional right to a jury trial. The defendant may waive the constitutional right to a jury trial, provided the waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. A waiver is knowing and intelligent if it is made with full awareness of the nature of the right and the consequences of abandoning it. It is voluntary if it was the product of a free and deliberate choice, rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception. Whether a defendant satisfies that standard must depend upon the unique circumstances of each case. Our Supreme Court has persistently declined to mandate any specific admonitions describing aspects of the jury trial right. We instead examine the totality of circumstances.
Authority:
U.S. Const., 6th Amend.
Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 16
People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151, 166-167 [Our precedent has not mandated any specific method for determining whether a defendant has made a knowing and intelligent waiver of a jury trial in favor of a bench trial]
People v. Daniels (2017) 3 Cal.5th 961, 992
Second Holding:
A reviewing court’s task is to independently examine the record to determine whether the defendant’s jury waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. We will uphold the validity of a jury waiver if the record affirmatively shows that it is voluntary and intelligent under the totality of the circumstances. We do not start with a presumption of validity that may only be rebutted by signs of a defendant’s confusion or unwillingness in entering a waiver. Instead, a reviewing court satisfies itself of a legitimate waiver only when the record affirmatively demonstrates it was knowing and intelligent.
Authority:
People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 453
People v. Daniels (2017) 3 Cal.5th 961, 991
Third Holding:
The record here does not affirmatively show that the defendant’s jury trial waiver was knowing and intelligent under the totality of the circumstances. The court’s advisement addressed only one and a half of the four basic mechanics of a jury trial described in Sivongxxay: that a judge alone would decide guilt if the defendant forwent a jury trial, and that the jury would be composed of people who live in the county.
But the advisement omitted that a jury consists of 12 people, that jurors are selected from a larger pool of prospective jurors in a process in which he could participate through counsel, or that a jury verdict must be unanimous––meaning that the prosecution would have to convince all 12 jurors of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than a single judge. Nothing in the record shows the defendant had ever been advised of these omitted mechanics. He had no prior criminal history, and thus no prior occasion to receive such advisements from a court or otherwise. Nor does the record show a written waiver form was used.
Authority:
People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151, 167-168
People v. Weaver (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1056, 1070 [though not required, written waiver form is helpful to establish the adequacy of a jury waiver]
People v. Jones (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 420
