I get what Justice Gilbert is saying in his dissent here. I really do. And it's true that the defendant here appears to have been caught on a home video camera entering the home; that he was apprehended by the police near the residence a short time later; and that he matched the description of the person on the video and was caught holding a knife stored in the garage.
So I have no real dispute with the part of Justice Gilbert's concluding paragraph that these facts "show overwhelming evidence of guilt."
But I'm not sure that the next three sentences of his conclusion follow from that premise; e.g., that "All parties in litigation are entitled to a fair trial. This includes the prosecution. The majority’s rote application of section 231.7 defeats this goal."
It's not like the majority's opinion here lets the accused go free. All it does is to entitle the defendant to a new trial in which the prosecution doesn't illegally dismiss a minority juror. If the evidence is indeed so overwhelming, it's extraordinarily likely that he'll again be found guilty and held responsible for what he's done.
This time, from a jury of his peers.
I don't particularly see what's so devastating about that. Does it take a little more effort? Sure.
But it seems worth it for the overall result.
Moreover, maybe the way to stop the duplication of effort would be to not impermissibly strike the minority juror in the first place. Particularly when -- as apparently here -- the evidence against the defendant is indeed so overwhelming.
