Error and/or relief
The defendant’s jury trial waiver was invalid as it was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Reversed and remanded 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.
Authority:
U.S. Const., 6th Amend.
Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 16
People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151, 166
Second Holding:
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.
Authority:
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. We instead examine the totality of circumstances.]
People v. Daniels (2017) 3 Cal.5th 961, 992
Third 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
Fourth Holding:
Our Supreme Court has eschewed any rigid formula or particular form of words that a trial court must use in taking a jury waiver. That said, it has emphasized the value of a robust oral colloquy in evincing a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of a jury trial.
The Supreme Court has recommended that trial courts advise a defendant of the basic mechanics of a jury trial in a waiver colloquy, including but not necessarily limited to the facts that (1) a jury is made up of 12 members of the community; (2) a defendant through his or her counsel may participate in jury selection; (3) all 12 jurors must unanimously agree in order to render a verdict; and (4) if a defendant waives the right to a jury trial, a judge alone will make the decision.
Authority:
People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151, 169-170
Fifth Holding:
The Supreme Court has also recommended that the trial judge take additional steps as appropriate to ensure, on the record, that the defendant comprehends what the jury trial right entails.
A trial judge may do so in any number of ways—among them, by asking whether the defendant had an adequate opportunity to discuss the decision with his or her attorney, by asking whether counsel explained to the defendant the fundamental differences between a jury trial and a bench trial, or by asking the defendant directly if he or she understands or has any questions about the right being waived.
Ultimately, a court must consider the defendant’s individual circumstances and exercise judgment in deciding how best to ensure that a particular defendant who purports to waive a jury trial does so knowingly and intelligently.
(Gary note: The court then analyzed record in this case and concluded that the jury trial waiver was not 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.)
Authority:
People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151, 169-170
People v. Jones (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 420, 428