Williams v. Super. Ct.

Petitioner Darren Williams sought relief from the superior court’s order denying his Penal Code section 9951 motion to dismiss an indictment issued by a grand jury charging him with a series of cell phone store robberies. Petitioner moved to dismiss the indictment on the basis that the deputy district attorney’s excusal of a juror for hardship violated the grand jury’s independence and rendered it improperly constituted. The California Supreme Court was considering the related question of whether a prosecutor’s improper dismissal of a grand juror denied a defendant a “substantial right” in Avitia v. Superior Court (Apr. 18, 2017, C082859) [nonpub. opn.], review granted June 21, 2017, S242030.2 Petitioner also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to the gang allegations and counts regarding a March 10, 2014, robbery. Pending further guidance from the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal resolved this matter by concluding the superior court should have granted the motion to dismiss the indictment. “The deputy district attorney’s exercise of authority he did not have over the grand jury, in front of the grand jurors, was not harmless. It was a fundamental misunderstanding of the prosecutor’s role that damaged the structure of the grand jury process and the independence of the grand jury itself.” The Court issued a peremptory writ of mandate vacating the superior court’s order denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss the indictment and directed the court to enter a new order granting the motion. View "Williams v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law