The Supreme Court confirms the death sentence for arsonists who have determined fatal Esperanza fire

Metropolitan News-Enterprise

Tuesday, May 6th 2025

Page 1

The Supreme Court confirms the death sentence for arsonists who have determined fatal Esperanza fire

The majority confirm the punishment, although the defendant's objections that the juror was incorrectly dismissed from the criminal phase. Evans, Liu page with defendant

From a Metnews -Staff Writer

Raymond Oyler convicted murderer

Yesterday, the Supreme Court of California confirmed the convictions and the death sentence for a man who was accused of banning more than two dozen forest fires of passports in summer and autumn 2006, including the deadly Esperanza fire, which demanded the lives of five firefighters.

There was no disagreement among the jurists as to whether the arsonist, raymond Oyler, what Properly Convicted of Five Counts of First Degree Murder, 20 Arson Charges, and 17 Other Crimes, But the Justices Divided Over Whether the Death Sentence Could in the Face of the Trial Judge Disqualifying A Juror Who Had Indicated on a Questionnaire that she was not opposed to the penalty But Said, Upon Questioning in Court, that she would be, to be right to make it.

Oyler claims that his judgment must be canceled because the then judge of the Supreme Court, W. Charles Morgan, was identified in the dismissal of the potential juror, who was identified in the statement as “EW”, for reasons of their voir-dire answers, the defendant of his constitutional right to the responsible procedure, a fair process and reliable death representation and reliable Death representative representative, rightly had.

In one written by Chief Justice Patricia Guerreo and from the Justices Carol A. Corrigan, Leondra R. Kruger, Joshua P. Groban and Martin J. Jenkins, which the majority to conclude that the answers of the potential discussion participant have an “evolv[ing]View of their ability to vote for the punishment and found no guilt in dismissal, based on the fact that after further thinking they thought “honestly” that she would prefer a lifelong prison sentence.

They found Oyler's challenges for his beliefs, including the arguments that the evidence was not sufficient to be unfounded.

Judge Kelli Evans faced the majority of the majority to confirm Oyler's convictions, but created a dissent, which was put together by Justice Goodwin H. Liu. Evans had problems with Morgan's failure to examine the potential juror as to whether her preference could be overcome for a non-fatal sentence if she writes:

“Nothing in EW's answers was found that it would not have been able to follow the law and impose the death penalty if the circumstances are justified. This is the only relevant question in the context of the precedent of the High Court.” … the reason for this is simple – because it was not asked. “

Answers from the jury

Some of the inquiries from a questionnaire of the jury examined the views of the potential discussion participants to the death penalty. EW explained in response to a question that asked about her general feelings on this topic that she feels “feels[s]That it is a necessary punishment to “have”, but should “be reserved for those who are cruel [and] unusual [sic] With their crimes, especially serial killers, rapists [and] Criminals against children. “

She explained that she believed that in most cases the punishment was “waste of time” because “[m]East people who leave it for long periods … and are actually not carried out. “

Question 44 In the form, was divided into sub -parts, and a part asked whether the discussion participant would “automatically vote for the punishment of death for a punishment for a lifelong prison sentence without the possibility of probation, without taking into account the evidence of the defense lawyer and the character of the defense lawyer.”

EW replied to this request and one and asked if “automatically voted in favor of the punishment of the lifelong prison sentence without the possibility of probation and would automatically vote for the death penalty for the death penalty without taking into account the evidence or one of the difficult and mitigating factors”.

In response to the investigation of question 44 (f), whether it could “put aside [her] Own personal feelings regarding what the law should be and the law should be followed, as the court explains, ”replied EW by writing“ yes ”.

Voir direct survey

About a week later, EW in Voir Dire was asked about her answers. Morgan asked whether she would only vote for death if the special circumstances included serial murderers, rape or crimes against children, and she replied with the statement that she “had to fight with” and “thought” about whether she was locked up in a certain position if it came to punishment. Ultimately, she replied that she didn't know.

He reminded them that the special circumstances associated in the present case affected allegations for several murder and murders from arson, and examined whether it would prefer a lifelong sentence, regardless of the aggravating or mitigating factors that were presented, and said:

“[M]Y question to you, are both options open to you and especially open to you when we arrive there? “

She replied with “No”.

Morgan followed and asked if she would prefer a sentence to another to which she replied that “I do honestly, yes”. The judge then excused and said her “honest evaluation” was everything he had to hear.

Majority of the perspective

Guerrero found that a potential juror can be excluded for reasons of the matter without violating the constitutional rights of an accused if the views of the discussion participant to capital punishments affect the ability to conscientiously consider all alternatives.

Oyler argues that the decision of the High Court 2015 in 2015 in 2015 People v. Leon notes that Morgan in the apology from EW in the excuse LeonIn questionnaires, three potential jurors stated that they would automatically favor a life penalty without the possibility of probation, based on their views on the death penalty.

After further survey by the court, they said that they could put personal feelings aside and weigh up the aggravating and mitigating factors before deciding on the punishment. The Court of Justice found a mistake in its subsequent excuse and said that “[t]The fleeting voir of the dismissed jurors here simply did not be enough to enable well -founded determination about their ability. “

The top judge rejected the argument that Leoncontrolled and said:

“The inquiries in Leon were classified as inadequate because the meal of the court simply put the jury questionnaire and triggered answers similar to those who have already been provided, to question without further question, which would be characterized by the associated questionnaires that indicate the ability to serve. In this case, Voir Dire has not simply “simply confirmed” a subgroup of questionnaire answers. Instead, it was found that EWS had viewed their ability to vote for the death penalty – obviously due to considerable considerations of their part – because she had excluded the jury's questionnaire. “

She noticed: “There is no script that has to be followed during Voir Dire” and came to the conclusion that “”[a]Although questions such as the unanimous and deviating opinion can be helpful under certain circumstances. Here the court carried out an appropriate investigation in view of EW's answers. No further survey was required. “Guerrero explained:

“Significant evidence supports the excuse of the court of EW by the court”

Dissent

Evans said that “[a]The criminal accused has a constitutional right to be put on trial by an impartial jury that was not inclined in favor of the death penalty “and that” such jurors are qualified to serve “, as long as they clearly say that they are willing to raise their own opinions and apply the rule of law.

She commented on this rule on the facts before the court, she said:

“The record that supports disqualification in the present case Leon. As a threshold, the written answers from prospective EW EW made no basis for the apology for you. Since the expressed feeling actually has a basis, it is also not disqualified. “

She turned to the Voir Dire carried out and said that the court's questions were “no longer examined than they were asked and answered in Leon“Said that they had given themselves the” alternative articulation “of inquiries from the written questionnaire. She said:

“The feeling that EW does not both for punishments

Justice added:

“Even if it is” the better practice “, a dish that carries out the appropriate voir does not have to ask exactly whether a juror is putting on its prejudices and the law can follow … but a judicial court still has to ask questions and investigate answers to this ultimate question.”

The majority do not agree that respect is due to the decision of the court because the judge had the advantage of experiencing the behavior of EW, she argued:

“This reversation is not appropriate … when the court does not carry out a reasonable investigation … Although the subsequent court only carried out limited oral voir dire, it was inadequate because the court did not ask about EWS ability to lift its prejudices and to follow the law, despite its written answers, which expressed the willingness.”

The case is People v. Oyler2025 SOS 1181.

Daniel Hoover-Najera, Jess McLean, Jason McKay, Mark Listerehiser and Pablo Cerda from the US forest service were killed by injuries that fought against the Esperanza fire. In 2009, Oyler was convicted of murdering her death because he had deliberately started fire.

Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company