</s>"We simply cannot conclude, either on the basis of the record now before us or as a matter of judicial notice, that the ex- clusion of jurors opposed to capital punish- ment results in an unrepresentative jury on the issue of guilt or substantially in- creases the risk of conviction ... " Id ., 517-18. The court did, however, leave open the possibility that such a showing might be made in some future case. Id ., 520(n.18). This Court, subsequent to Witherspoon and several months prior to appellant's trial, denied the petitioners' motion for an evidential hearing regard- ing the foregoing claim in In Re Anderson, supra, 69 Cal. 2d 613, noting that the pending studies were of a "sociological or psychological nature" and that therefore the "prospect is remote" that pending studies "will yield views of human behavior of such incontestable, eternal truth that existing constitu- tional doctrines will have to retreat before them. Such studies hold too little promise to warrant what would amount to an indeterminate stay of the judicial process in a critical area. " Id .- 621. 279. 2025 RELEASE UNDER E.O. 14176

Summary:  
The document presents a legal argument regarding the constitutionality of excluding jurors opposed to capital punishment during a penalty phase trial. It references cases such as *Witherspoon v. Illinois* (1968) and *Bumper v. North Carolina* (1967), which established that excluding jurors based on their views on capital punishment does not necessarily result in an unrepresentative jury or increase the risk of conviction. The court emphasized that such exclusions are permissible unless a showing of prejudice is made. The text also discusses the trial court's rejection of evidence related to the Arab-Israeli conflict as irrelevant to determining the appropriate penalty, citing *People v. Nye* (1954) as precedent. Additionally, it addresses the argument that the absence of fixed standards for sentencing violates due process and equal protection, which was rejected by courts in *In re Anderson* (1968) and *McDautha v. California* (1971). The document concludes with a request to affirm the death penalty verdict, citing the jury's determination as just.  

Key People:  
- Appellant (defendant in the case, accused of assassinating a Senator)  
- Trial court judge  
- Respondent (prosecution or legal representatives)  
- Attorneys General and assistants (Evelle J. Younger, William E. James, Ronald M. George)  

Key Locations:  
- California courts (specifically referenced as the jurisdiction for *In re Anderson* and other cases)  

Key Events:  
- Jury selection process during a capital punishment trial  
- Exclusion of jurors opposed to capital punishment  
- Trial court's rejection of evidence about the Arab-Israeli conflict  
- Legal arguments regarding constitutional protections for sentencing procedures  
- Final determination to affirm the death penalty verdict  

Key Organizations:  
- California Supreme Court (cited in *In re Anderson*)  
- United States Supreme Court (cited in *Witherspoon v. Illinois*, *Bumper v. North Carolina*, and *McDautha v. California*)

RFK Declassified Files

56-la-156-y_sec_001_ser_1--part_7_of_7.pdf

Document Summary

Try AI Search