Juror Misconduct
Category > Juror Misconduct
Updated 7/12/2024Juror misconduct in discussing sentencing was not prejudicial where the record shows the last juror voted to convict based on the evidence.The jury was instructed not to consider punishment. One juror intended to vote not guilty, but changed her mind after viewing a video. She then agreed to vote guilty on condition that the other jurors agreed to attach a note to the verdict form requesting leniency at sentencing. During a hearing for the motion for new trial, the juror acknowledged that sentencing was discussed during deliberations. The record established juror misconduct but the error was harmless where the juror changed her vote to guilty based on the evidence, rather than in exchange for the jury note requesting lenient sentencing.id: 28312
The trial court erred by failing to conduct a careful inquiry after learning a group of jurors had been discussing the case among themselves.A group of four jurors discussed the case outside of deliberations, noted there was at least one holdout juror and commented that if the defendant was set free he, could kill again. The trial court refused to inquire into further facts and instead gave an admonition informing the jurors that any deliberations must take place in the presence of the entire jury. However, the admonition was insufficient and the court should have conducted a careful inquiry into the purported jury misconduct.id: 26045
The death sentence was reversed where the court intruded into the deliberative process by providing a probing questionnaire after the jurors announced a deadlock.The trial court’s investigation into the penalty phase retrial jury’s announced deadlock was so intrusive that it prejudicially invaded the sanctity of deliberations and created a coercive effect on those deliberations. After the reported impasse, the court sent a detailed questionnaire that asked them to report their thoughts and the conduct of their fellow jurors. It was clear to the jurors that the court’s inquiry was designed to settle the problem of the deadlock and to let the holdout jurors know their conduct would be reported to, and scrutinized by, the court.id: 24863
A juror committed prejudicial misconduct during deliberations by informing the others that a vote for second degree murder could lead to the defendant walking out of prison.A juror committed misconduct during deliberations by informing the others that a vote for second rather than first degree murder might result in the defendant getting credit for time-served, and that he could “walk tomorrow.” The offending juror claimed this knowledge based on a previous job as a prison official. Several jurors thereafter changed their initial vote to first degree murder. The prejudice from the misconduct was not rebutted by an admonition to resolve the case based on the facts. This was not a case with overwhelming evidence of guilt, and the misconduct was inherently prejudicial. The murder conviction was reversed.id: 25317
Juror misconduct required reversal where jurors discussed defendant’s decision not to testify after being admonished not to consider that topic.The trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct, after it was confirmed that deliberating jurors were questioning why the defendant didn’t testify. Prejudice is presumed and was not rebutted here where the misconduct went directly to the ultimate issue of defendant’s guilt.id: 25431
The trial court erred by refusing to excuse a juror who had been the alleged victim’s high school teacher.The trial court prejudicially erred by refusing to remove Juror No. 7 after learning the juror had been the alleged rape victim’s high school teacher, and even three years later continued to have positive memories and impressions of her former student. Reversal was automatic because the presence of even one biased juror is structural error.id: 25334
The penalty phase jury’s suggestion that the deadlock might be broken if they heard from defendant was misconduct but there was no showing of prejudice.The jury’s suggestion that the deadlock might be resolved during deliberations if it could hear from defendant showed the jury discussed the defendant’s failure to testify. This was misconduct but there was no showing of any actual bias. An examination of the record showed the request was made in an effort help the defense case, and there was no indication the jurors were holding defendant’s failure to testify against him.id: 25182
The juror’s possession of a nonfiction book on stalking during penalty phase deliberations was misconduct but there was no evidence of prejudice. A juror committed misconduct during penalty phase deliberations by possessing a nonfiction book on the subject of stalking called the Gift of Fear. However, after questioning the juror the court found the juror’s chiropractor had loaned it to her and there was no likelihood of bias. The court’s finding was supported by substantial evidence. id: 25183
Jurors committed misconduct by conducting an experiment falsely accusing another juror during deliberations to see his reaction to the accusation.During deliberations in defendant’s child molest case, the jurors performed an experiment to see how a falsely accused person might act. One juror falsely accused another of improper sexual acts and comments. However, the false accusation and the juror’s reaction were not part of the evidence in the case but were presented to, and considered by, the jury in reaching a verdict. This was juror misconduct and required reversal of the convictions.id: 25223
The trial court erred by allowing a juror who was excused after overhearing a witness’s cell phone conversation testify as a prosecution witness. A juror informed the court that he overheard a witness talking on a cell phone while in the bathroom. The court later excused that juror after investigating the matter. The trial court thereafter prejudicially erred when it permitted the excused juror to testify as a prosecution witness.id: 24158
A juror committed misconduct by doing an online search of the bar that employed the rape victim, but the misconduct was not prejudicial.Defendant was convicted of the rape of an unconscious or intoxicated person. The victim was a bartender who was not working that night. A juror committed misconduct by looking up (online) the bar where the victim worked and reading reviews including one that mentioned the victim. However, the presumption of prejudice was rebutted given the strength of the evidence against defendant, and the fact that the misconduct was fleeting, and not likely to have influenced the juror.id: 24135
Juror misconduct in discussing the case and establishing a belief in defendant’s guilt early in the case demonstrated a bias and required reversal of a capital conviction.A juror committed misconduct during defendant’s capital case by proclaiming defendant’s guilt “no matter what” after the first ballot, and after repeatedly discussing the case outside of deliberations. He discussed the case during his daily commute, at lunch, during breaks, in courtroom hallways and elevators. He phoned nondeliberating jurors during deliberations and described discussions in the jury room. The record showed this was a biased juror and the conviction was reversed. id: 23649
The juror committed prejudicial misconduct by seeking the advice of his pastor on the question of mercy during penalty phase deliberations. A juror committed misconduct by calling his pastor for spiritual advice on the use of mercy and sympathy in making a decision on imposing the death penalty. The pastor informed him that mercy was inconsistent with “the law of the land,” and the evidence showed the offending juror may have been biased by the pastor’s words. The death judgment was reversed.id: 23703
The trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s request for juror identifying information based on defendant’s parents declaration suggesting certain jurors considered defendant’s failure to testify.Defendant was convicted of felony drunk driving and despite an incriminating statement by defendant, there was an issue at trial about whether he was the driver of the car that caused the accident. After trial, he filed a motion for the disclosure of the juror’s identifying information based on his parents’ sworn statements that certain jurors found defendant was the driver partly because he did not testify. The trial court erred in denying that motion. It did not matter that the parents’ declarations consisted of hearsay. Next, while some of the jurors’ statements were inadmissible under Evidence Code section 1150, the jurors would commit misconduct by discussing defendant’s failure to testify, and such an act of misconduct would be admissible under section 1150. By overlooking the admissible evidence the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion.id: 23428
Two undecided jurors committed misconduct by watching a movie about prison violence during penalty phase deliberations but there was no prejudice where there was no evidence of actual bias.During a break in penalty phase deliberations, two jurors watched a movie about prison violence at the urging of the jury foreman. The next day the jury returned a death verdict after 30 minutes of deliberation. The jurors committed misconduct by watching the movie. However, presumption of prejudice was rebutted where the movie was not inherently likely to influence a juror and it wasn’t likely that the jurors became actually biased against defendant.id: 23205
A juror committed prejudicial misconduct by reading the appellate opinion from the original trial.During a second trial following an appellate reversal, a juror committed gross misconduct by disobeying the court’s order to avoid extraneous materials by reading the appellate opinion. The misconduct was prejudicial and required another reversal of the murder conviction.id: 23194
The trial court investigating a claim of misconduct, did not violate the juror’s privacy rights by ordering disclosure of his Facebook postings made during the trial.The trial court investigated a claim of jury misconduct where it was alleged a juror posted details of the trial on his Facebook page. The trial court did not violate the juror’s privacy rights when it ordered him to sign a consent form authorizing Facebook to release all items he posted during the trial.id: 22724
A juror committed prejudicial misconduct by conducting an experiment at home during deliberations and reporting the results to others.During deliberations, a juror performed an experiment at his home under conditions not subject to judicial oversight or cross-examination. The juror used a broomstick to imitate the raising of a rifle out of the passenger window. He later reported the result, which was unfavorable to the defendant, to his fellow jurors who were struggling over the critical issue of whether defendant knew his friend was going to commit a drive-by shooting. The presumption of prejudice was not rebutted and the misconduct required reversal of defendant’s conviction.id: 22018
Introduction of extrinsic videotape into the jury room during penalty phase deliberations was improper but not prejudicial.During penalty phase deliberations, the jury viewed a videotape that was never admitted into evidence. The tape showed police interviews of three people on the day of the murders and arrests. While the jury should not have been allowed to consider the extrinsic evidence in reaching its verdict, the error was not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial. The exposure to the videotape was accidental and solely the result of court staff error so there was no juror misconduct and no presumption of prejudice. There was no reasonable possibility of a different outcome absent the error.id: 21470
A juror committed prejudicial misconduct by discussing the case every day with a nonjuror friend and because the misconduct interfered with that juror’s impartiality reversal was required. A juror committed misconduct by speaking on a daily basis about the merits of the case with a nonjuror friend. The conversations interfered with the deliberative process and the right to have the case decided by 12 impartial jurors. Because the improper conversations were pervasive, and focused on the merits of the case (including the defendant’s failure to testify) the misconduct was prejudicial.id: 21445
Juror’s misconduct in commenting on defendant’s failure to testify was harmless where it was innocuous and only heard by two others.Defendant alleged juror misconduct based upon the comments of a juror at the guilt and/or penalty phase regarding defendant’s failure to testify. However, the misconduct was harmless where only two jurors heard the guilt phase comment, and the penalty phase comment was not made until after the jurors had reached a verdict and contacted the bailiff.id: 21028
A juror's conversation with a priest about the death penalty did not result in the bias against defendant of any deliberating juror.A juror was discharged during penalty phase deliberations after it was discovered he had spoken with a Catholic priest during
the guilt phase, and had been advised that the church policy would allow him to follow the law of the land. After the death verdict, he argued the misconduct required a new trial. However, the misconduct was harmless as it was unlikely that the content of the juror's conversation with the priest contributed to the guilt or penalty phase verdict.id: 19821
Juror misconduct in reading biblical passages during penalty phase deliberations was not prejudicial where the passages did not advocate for the death penalty but confirmed that the Bible authorized it.A juror committed misconduct by bringing biblical passages into the jury room and reading them aloud during penalty phase deliberations. The error was not prejudicial as the passages did not propound an alternative set of rules or standards about when the death penalty should be imposed, but merely counseled deference to governmental authority and affirmed the validity of sitting in judgment of one's fellow human beings according to the law.id: 19398
Juror's misconduct in reading a newspaper article following opening statements was harmless.A juror committed misconduct by reading a newspaper article about the case on the second day of the trial. However, the presumption of prejudice was rebutted where it was shown that the offending juror did not discuss the article with other jurors and did not recall specifics relating to defendant's prior record or claims regarding the racial makeup of the jury. id: 19229
The hearing impaired juror was incompetent and the juror's failure to inform the court of her problems was misconduct.Given Juror No. 11's hearing impairment, coupled with her statement that she could not hear defense counsel at various times, she was an incompetent juror. In addition, she committed misconduct in failing to notify the court when she
could not hear. Reversal of the convictions was required.id: 19178
Juror committed misconduct in telling the others that juvenile records are sealed when the person reaches 18 years of age.During deliberations a juror committed misconduct n informing the others that he had a background in law enforcement and that the lack of evidence did not mean the defendant had no criminal background, because juvenile records are automatically sealed at 18 years of age. However, the misconduct did not support a finding that any juror was impermissibly influenced to the defendant's detriment and, therefore, did not require reversal.id: 12670
Juror's reading of a newspaper article regarding defendant's prior crimes required reversal of the guilt phase judgment.Despite advisements to the contrary one juror, on the second day of trial, read a newspaper article stating that defendant was on parole after having served time for assaulting a woman with a hammer. He did not relate this fact to the other jurors until after they had signed their guilt phase verdicts. Because one juror went through the entire guilt phase contaminated by knowledge of what had been judicially determined to be inadmissible and prejudicial information, the judgment was reversed.id: 12680
The court erred in failing to conduct an inquiry into potential juror misconduct where a witness was seen talking to a juror.Defendant argued the trial court erred in failing to conduct an inquiry into possible juror misconduct after the prosecutor indicated to the court that she had seen one of the police officers speaking with a juror. The court erred in failing to hold a hearing to determine whether the juror remained competent to serve. However, no presumption of prejudice arose where it was determined the improper communication related to matters not involved with the cause being tried.id: 12699
Spanish-speaking juror committed misconduct in retranslating for the other jurors the testimony as translated by the court-appointed interpreter.A trial juror committed misconduct by retranslating for other jurors the testimony as translated by the court-appointed interpreter. The proper action would have been to call the matter to the trial court's attention. The retranslation of touch to push did not prejudice the defendant because it was irrelevant whether defendant touched or pushed the victim in an attempt to get her to perform her household chores. Finally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing into possible prejudicial misconduct by other jurors who may have commented on inaccuracies in the interpreter's translations. The defendant did not request such an evidentiary hearing and the other Spanish-speaking jurors never came forward with complaints about the accuracy of the translations.id: 12695
Prejudicial juror misconduct was established where a juror concealed information on voir dire, prejudged the case and discussed the facts with coworkers.Evidence supported the referee's findings that a juror had greater knowledge of the case than she revealed on voir dire and that she discussed the case with co-workers while sitting as a juror in the case. However, the fact that she stated she was one of the last jurors to vote for guilt did not constitute substantial evidence to support the referee's conclusion that the juror did not prejudge the case. Juror misconduct was established and the presumption of prejudice was unrebutted by evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus was granted.id: 12692
Juror's concealment of a prior felony conviction constituted misconduct but prejudice was rebutted by the finding that he was impartial.A juror gave false information on his jury questionnaire and concealed during voir dire the fact of his prior felony conviction. This concealment amounted to juror misconduct and prejudice was presumed. However, in light of the trial court's finding that he was an impartial juror, the presumption of prejudice was rebutted.id: 12674
Defendant did not receive a fair trial because one of the jurors was mildly retarded.After defendant's conviction it was discovered that one of the jurors was mildly retarded at the time of the trial. Her mental deficiencies prevented her from carrying out her required duties as a juror. Her failure to inform the court during voir dire of her disability, although not rising to the level of misconduct, supported the conclusion she was incapable of fully understanding the proceedings. Consequently, defendant failed to receive a fair trial and reversal was required notwithstanding the People's contention that no resulting prejudice was shown.id: 12651
Any misconduct in a juror's leaving the room to smoke a cigarette and the others discussing a note at that time to be sent to the judge was not prejudicial.Neither the misconduct of Juror No. 6 in leaving the deliberations to smoke a cigarette, nor the assumed misconduct of the jurors who discussed the wording of the note regarding aiding and abetting to the trial judge in her absence, could have produced any significant effect on the jury's deliberations or the ultimate verdict. Moreover, Juror No. 6 was dismissed and replaced with an alternate and deliberations began anew. The fact that the reconstituted jury sent a note to the court similar to the note sent before Juror No. 6 was excused did not indicate the jurors failed to heed the court's admonition to deliberate anew.id: 12627
Juror's inadvertent glance at a newspaper headline noting the codefendant's conviction by a separate jury was misconduct but not prejudicial.A juror committed misconduct by glancing at a newspaper headline stating that the codefendant had been found guilty by another jury. However, the case against codefendant was different from the case against defendant and the jury was so instructed. Given the overwhelming evidence against defendant, the extraneous material was not inherently and substantially likely to have influenced the juror. Moreover, the juror's conduct in glancing at the headline was inadvertent. She did not read the accompanying article and there was no evidence she was biased against defendant.id: 12676
Juror's misconduct in providing information on the accuracy rates of polygraph tests to the other jurors was not prejudicial where witnesses had addressed the disparity in accuracy rates among experts.During deliberations a juror told fellow jurors that due to her background in psychology she knew that while polygraph experts claimed 80 to 90 percent accuracy rates, other studies have found accuracy of only 50 to 60 percent. The prosecution rebutted the presumption of the misconduct by showing that on cross-examination, the polygraph expert admitted certain studies put the accuracy of the polygraph at around 60 percent. The juror also told the others that the accuracy was dependent upon the exact wording of the polygraph question. However, this topic had also been explored during the trial and there was no prejudicial misconduct.id: 12677
Juror committed prejudicial misconduct by introducing extraneous information into sanity phase deliberations.During the sanity phase of defendant's trial, a juror received information in a bar regarding defendant's qualities as a mother and her drug use. When that juror participated in deliberations, she emphasized the extrajudicial information she had obtained, attempting to change the views of other jurors. Because the juror's misconduct during the sanity phase evidenced a state of mind that rendered her unable to perform her duty not to prejudice the case, the Court determined there was a substantial likelihood she was actually biased. Therefore, the presumption of prejudice arising from her misconduct remained unrebutted.id: 12671
Juror committed misconduct by inquiring about the marital status and "availability" of the prosecutor but the misconduct was not prejudicial.A juror inquired of a deputy public defender in an elevator whether the prosecutor in her case was "available." Moreover, after the jury was discharged, the juror gave the prosecutor a note with her name and telephone number. Under subsequent questioning by the court and counsel, the juror specifically denied her inquiries about the prosecutor had any influence on her deliberations and denied sharing these thoughts with other jurors. The juror's conduct did not establish as a "demonstrable reality" her inability to perform the functions of a juror.id: 15957
While CALJIC 17.41.1 is not unconstitutional, trial courts should no longer instruct jurors to notify the court if others are refusing to deliberate.CALJIC No. 17.41.1 instructs jurors to advise the court if any of the other jurors refuse to deliberate or express an intention to disregard the law. The instruction does not violate a defendant's constitutional right to a trial by jury or to a unanimous verdict. However, the instruction should not be given in future trials because it has the potential to intrude unnecessarily in the deliberative process and affect it adversely both with respect to the freedom of jurors to express their differing views during deliberations, and the proper receptivity they should accord the views of their fellow jurors.id: 16889
Juror's failure to inform the court during voir dire that he had been stabbed as a youth was not prejudicial.A juror failed to inform the court during voir dire that he had previously been stabbed several times in an incident when he was young. The juror said he had never been a crime victim. The court later determined the failure to describe the incident during voir dire was inadvertent. Notwithstanding that finding, juror misconduct may be found where bias is apparent from the record. Any presumption of prejudice was rebutted here where the court, after an extensive hearing, accepted the juror's claim that he never thought about the incident during voir dire.id: 18239
A juror committed misconduct by telling a witness (in the ladies room) that she was an attractive women.A juror told a witness in the ladies room during a break in the proceedings that the witness was an attractive woman. While the contact constituted misconduct it was not prejudicial since the juror did not display a romantic interest and the record did not show the interaction was likely to have influenced the juror.id: 17983
Jurors committed misconduct during the penalty phase by consulting their pastors and in one case bringing scriptures into deliberations prior to the death verdict.During penalty phase deliberations, a juror informed her husband she was struggling with the decision and he provided her with certain verses of scripture from the Old Testament. She then discussed the matter with her pastor who jokingly informed her that if he were on the jury he would vote for death. The juror later took the scripture into deliberations where it was determined that a second juror had also discussed the matter with her pastor. The jury later returned a death verdict. The first juror's discussion with her husband was not misconduct because it dealt with the stress of her decision rather than the content of the deliberations. However, the juror committed misconduct by discussing the case with her pastor, and reading and sharing the Biblical passages with the others. The second juror also committed misconduct by discussing the case with her pastor. Nevertheless, the misconduct was not prejudicial where the evidence shows the jurors had essentially made up their minds prior to the misconduct.id: 17736
The trial court prejudicially erred in excusing two jurors during deliberations without asking if they would continue even if their employers would not pay them.Twelve jurors deliberated for about three and one-half days, with two (or possibly three) holdouts. When two jurors were replaced without any inquiry about whether they would be willing to remain another day even if their employers would not pay them, the reconstituted jury reach a verdict in about three hours. The trial court prejudicially erred in excusing the two jurors.id: 12538
When a criminal defendant moves for a new trial based on allegations of jury misconduct, the trial court has discretion to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the truth of the allegations.A trial court has the discretion to grant an evidentiary hearing on a new trial motion based on jury tampering or juror misconduct and to have jurors called to testify at the hearing. However, such hearing should be held only when the trial court, in its discretion, concludes that an evidentiary hearing is necessary to resolve material, disputed issues of fact.id: 12139
Court erred in denying new trial motion on a factual scenario presumptively establishing prejudicial jury misconduct.After the jury returned its verdict, defendant moved for funding to investigate possible jury misconduct. Counsel had learned in questioning two jurors upon their discharge that the jury based its decision of guilt on the fact that defendant did not testify. The court denied the motion finding that a juror cannot impeach his or her own verdict on the theory that the jury did not follow the law. The court then stated the new trial motion would be denied even assuming that all twelve jurors said the decision regarding defendant's failure to testify took place. The court abused its discretion in denying the motion on a factual scenario that presumptively established prejudicial jury misconduct.id: 12122
Updated 7/12/2024Playing the videos at different speeds or in conjunction with one another during deliberations was not an improper juror experiment and was not misconduct.Defendant argued the jurors committed misconduct by manipulating the surveillance videos during deliberations. However, while the juror viewed multiple clips simultaneously or back-to-back, there was no evidence that they were altered or edited. This was not an improper juror experiment and there was no misconduct.id: 28313
Updated 3/5/2024The trial court did not err by excusing a juror who repeatedly discussed the case outside of court.Juror No. 5 engaged in misconduct by disregarding the court’s repeated admonition and discussing the case on multiple occasions. The trial court did not thereafter err by excusing the juror. While Juror No. 5 minimized the violations during his testimony, that account was disputed by Juror No. 8, and the trial court found the latter to be more credible. id: 27001
Updated 2/26/2024The jurors did not conduct an improper experiment by rocking the boat that had been admitted into evidence as an exhibit.Defendant’s boat was admitted into evidence. The trial court did not err by allowing the jurors to physically examine the boat during deliberations. When jurors tried to rock the boat, to assess its stability, they did not conduct an improper experiment but simply manipulated a physical exhibit.id: 27003
Updated 2/23/2024There was no prejudicial misconduct where a juror may have seen a headline about the competency trial during the penalty phase of defendant’s capital case.Defendant argued the trial court in his capital trial erred in failing to discharge a juror who had seen newspaper headlines about the competency trial. Whether or not misconduct occurred, any error was harmless where the headlines were not inherently or substantially likely to have influenced a juror during the penalty phase.id: 26878
Updated 2/23/2024Juror bias was not presumed where the parties learned after trial that defendant’s brother had visited a juror during trial but the juror had not informed the court.The defendant’s brother learned where a juror lived, went to the juror’s house during trial, and although no overt threat or other comment about the merits of the case was made, caused the juror to seek extra protection without informing the court about the incident. Defendant later filed a new trial motion alleging juror bias. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to hold a hearing to determine whether the juror was biased where defense counsel never requested a hearing. No bias was presumed in this situation.id: 26888
Updated 2/7/2024The trial court’s inquiry rebutted any prejudice stemming from a juror’s discussion with her priest concerning the church’s views on the death penalty.Defendant argued a juror’s out-of-court discussion with a priest on the Catholic church’s position on capital punishment just before the penalty phase began violated several rights. However, the trial court’s inquiry sufficed to show the juror would decide the case free of outside influence. The court did not err in making the inquiry by phone in an effort to expeditiously address the matter. The record did not show bias especially where the inquiry occurred before deliberations began.id: 27222
Updated 2/3/2024There was no prejudice after jurors did online research on the term “Marsden” after hearing it in court.While jurors committed misconduct by researching the term “Marsden” during the trial, there was no evidence that the results of the research biased the jurors against defendant and so the presumption of prejudice was rebutted.id: 27659
Updated 2/1/2024The juror did not commit actionable misconduct by complaining about the length of defense counsel’s argument.Defendant argued the trial court failed to conduct a hearing and discharge a juror after that juror was heard commenting that defense counsel’s argument lasted too long. However, the comments did not amount to misconduct, and the trial court’s admonition to the jurors not to form any opinions about the case at that time sufficed to address the issue.id: 27920
A juror’s application for a job with the DA’s office, made during trial did not establish juror bias.Defendant argued the trial court erred in denying his new trial motion based on juror bias after he recently learned that, during trial, a juror had applied for a job with the DA’s office that was prosecuting him. However, the juror was a passive applicant who was not aggressively seeking the job, had been a county employee for years and responded to the posting she read that had an impending closing date. She had applied for 10 other jobs as well. The juror’s testimony at the evidentiary hearing supported the court’s finding that there was no actual bias, and this was not the rare case in which bias would be implied.id: 27610
Juror bias was not established by the discovery that a juror failed to disclose abuse as a child on her questionnaire.A juror in defendant’s capital case neglected to mention in her questionnaire that she had been raped and beaten as a child. Following an evidentiary hearing, the appointed referee determined the nondisclosure was problematic but did not disclose a juror bias. Evidence supported that finding. id: 25819
The trial court did not err by denying the new trial motion based on alleged juror misconduct that was supported only by counsel’s hearsay declaration.The trial court did not err by denying the defendant’s new trial motion based on juror misconduct. The motion was only supported by defense counsel’s hearsay statements. The defense argued a lack of access to the jurors to get more reliable statements, but the record showed the defense spoke to one juror who consented to the disclosure, and that fact belied the defense disclosure.id: 25769
The jury did not commit misconduct by viewing an exhibit that had not been introduced into evidence. The jury did not commit misconduct by seeing an exhibit during deliberations that had not been admitted into evidence. It was judicial, not jury error. The error was harmless where the exhibit was insignificant and included the prosecutor’s mildly stated opinion.id: 25778
Evidence supported the referee’s finding that the juror overlooked an earlier misdemeanor conviction when filling out the questionnaire, and the act was not intentional and didn’t show bias.The convicted capital defendant alleged in a habeas corpus petition that a juror committed misconduct by intentionally concealing that he had previously been convicted of public fighting and placed on probation. Evidence supported the referee’s finding that the juror overlooked his misdemeanor conviction when filling out the questionnaire. The failure to include the information was not intentional and did not show a juror bias.id: 25709
The trial court did not err by failing to conduct a more thorough inquiry into bias after learning that a juror knew the victim’s brother from work but indicated it would not affect his decision and agreed to avoid the brother during the trial.Defendant argued the trial court erred by failing to conduct a full inquiry into a seated juror’s bias and by failing to discharge that juror at the guilt phase. The juror sent a note to the judge during trial indicating that he just realized he knew the victim’s brother from work. When questioned by the court, the juror said he occasionally had phone contact with the victim’s brother on work-related matters but there was no personal relationship and he pledged to avoid contact with the brother during trial. He indicated he would feel no pressure to justify his later verdict. The court did not err by refusing to conduct a more thorough inquiry.id: 24818
The trial judge’s comments during a ruling in codefendant’s trial did not establish a disqualifying bias in defendant’s case.During a new trial motion at a codefendant’s trial, the judge found that certain prosecution witnesses were credible. Defendant argued these comments showed the judge to have a bias in favor of the prosecution in his case, and moved to disqualify him. However, the judge’s comment were narrow in scope and did not establish a bias that supported disqualification in defendant’s trial.id: 25537
The jurors did not commit misconduct by discussing defendant’s failure to testify where they were never instructed that such a discussion was improper.Defendant was convicted of assault but moved for a new trial based on juror misconduct. The trial court found the jurors had committed misconduct by discussing defendant’s failure to testify, but concluded the misconduct was not prejudicial. However, there was no misconduct because the trial court did not instruct the jury not to consider defendant’s decision not to testify.id: 25380
The trial court did not err by refusing to conduct a hearing into potential juror bias after the defense claims that the black juror nodded during testimony that the defendants targeted black people.Defense counsel informed the court that when there was testimony involving the defendants targeting of black people, the sole black juror adamantly nodded her head up and down in a way that suggested she was against the defendants. The trial court accepted the prosecution’s explanation that the juror just frequently rocked back and forth, and the court noted the case did not involve black witnesses, victims or defendants. The trial court did not err by refusing defense counsel’s request to conduct an investigation for juror bias or misconduct. The court took defense claims seriously but saw the juror’s demeanor and accepted the prosecution’s explanation.id: 24787
There was no prejudicial misconduct where jurors had a harmless discussion about the expert witness’s dog while the parties discussed a matter in chambers.The prosecution presented an expert witness on dog trailing evidence. During a break in the proceedings where the parties had a discussion in chambers, several jurors asked the witness questions about her own dog. Defendant argued the trial court later erred by denying his motion for a mistrial based on juror misconduct. However, the judge questioned each juror and determined the conversation was harmless.id: 24872
The trial court did not err in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing after being told that two jurors discussed their own prior drug use and the future of the death penalty. The trial court did not err in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing after being told that two jurors had discussed their personal drug use and the future of the death penalty. Their mental processes, which can’t be explored pursuant to Evidence Code section 1150. Moreover, discussion of these things, grounded in common knowledge is an inevitable feature of the jury system.id: 24523
Defendant failed to establish jury bias or misconduct based simply on counsel’s declaration stating the jury failed to consider the evidence.Defendant argued jury bias or jury misconduct but presented no evidentiary support other than counsel’s declaration stating that the jury’s verdict was not based on evidence but instead on the fact that the murder victim was a baby and defendant was a gang member. No evidence supported defendant’s assertion that the jury reached a decision without considering the evidence.id: 24371
The trial court did not err in rejecting the claim of juror misconduct where the juror adequately answered the voir dire questions and any omission was inadvertent.The trial court did not err in finding that Juror No. 7 did not commit misconduct based on the statements of Juror No. 5, who felt pressured by the others to plead guilty and said No. 7 claimed to have withheld information regarding the murder of a friend during voir dire. However, Juror 7 answered the questions asked during voir dire and any omission seemed to be inadvertent. And Juror No. 7's comment to the others that drugs effect everyone differently was brief and harmless. id: 21150
The trial court did not improperly tamper with the jury by asking the bailiff if the jurors had considered guilt phase exhibits during penalty phase deliberations.Defendant argued the trial court tampered with the jury by investigating whether it was viewing guilt phase exhibits during penalty phase deliberations, and then giving a biased supplemental instruction. However, the court merely asked the bailiff his observations of the deliberations room made during his regular duties of cleaning up. The bailiff did not speak to the jurors and did not intrude upon their thought processes. Moreover, the court’s instruction did not emphasize the exhibits but reminded the jurors of the things they could consider while deliberating.id: 23769
Juror misconduct in discussing the defendant’s decision not to testify did not require automatic reversal. Certain jurors committed misconduct by discussing during deliberations the fact that if the defendants were innocent they should have testified. However, the Court of Appeal erred by finding the error required automatic reversal without considering whether the jury had been promptly reminded of the court’s instruction to disregard defendant’s decision not to testify. The matter was remanded to the trial court for further inquiry.id: 23902
The jurors use of newly purchased toy cars to reenact the various accounts of the accident was not an improper experiment during deliberations and did not establish good cause for the release of juror identifying information. The defense moved for access to juror identifying information based on evidence that the jurors had improperly conducted an experiment while deliberating. One of the jurors purchased toy cars to reenact the accident. However, there was no improper experiment as the cars were used to reenact the versions of the incident described by the witnesses at trial. There was no showing of an attempt to discover new evidence through an experiment. The trial court properly found there was no good cause for the release of juror information. id: 24069
That certain jurors indicated they had places they needed to be did not establish that they could not properly perform their job as jurors. Defendant argued that external factors affected the penalty phase jury’s verdict. Several of the jurors had indicated they needed to be elsewhere for various reasons. However, the court’s failure to question the jurors was not improper and there was no showing they were improperly influenced.id: 23645
The jurors did not commit misconduct in using toy cars to reenact the accident and therefore defendant was not entitled to the release of the juror information.Defense counsel petitioned the trial court for the jurors identifying information upon learning after the gross vehicular manslaughter conviction that a juror had purchased toy cars to attempt to reenact the accident. This was not an improper juror experiment going beyond the evidence presented at trial but was more of a visual aid used to consider the evidence presented. It was not juror misconduct and the trial court did not err by finding there was no good cause to support the release of the juror information.id: 23414
The trial court could not consider a juror declaration suggesting others discussed defendant’s failure to testify because that invaded the privacy of deliberations.The trial court did not err by granting defendant’s new trial motion after receiving information from a juror that there was a discussion during deliberations regarding defendant’s failure to testify. Juror declarations regarding alleged misconduct may not refer to the juror’s subjective reasoning process.id: 23418
Trial judge could not consider defense investigator’s declaration claiming jurors improperly considered prison conditions while deliberating in defendant’s capital case.The trial court did not err by failing to grant a penalty phase retrial in light of evidence that the jurors improperly considered prison conditions as an alternative. The information came mostly from a defense investigator’s declaration which is hearsay and can’t be considered. While a seated juror also declared the issue was discussed by another juror, there was no evidence that any improper information was provided on the subject.id: 23417
There was no prejudicial judicial bias where the judge continued to preside over trial for the remainder of the afternoon after learning that his friends were prosecution witnesses. Defendant argued that once the judge realized that his two close friends would be testifying for the prosecution, he should have recused himself immediately. However, there was no statutory or constitutional violation where the judge continued to preside over the case for a brief period (completing the cross-examination of another witness) before disqualifying himself. id: 21749
The trial court did not err by failing to more fully investigate the claim that a juror was seen talking with members of defendant’s family.Defendant argued the trial court erred by failing to adequately investigate potential juror misconduct - specifically a claim that a juror was speaking with members of defendant’s family in the hallway. The trial court spoke with the interested parties, and satisfied itself that there was no conversation between the juror and defendant’s family that related to the trial. No further investigation was required.id: 21742
There was no prejudicial misconduct where the prospective juror’s failure to reveal certain facts about his past was unintentional. Defendant argued a juror committed prejudicial misconduct by failing to reveal during voir dire certain facts about his criminal history and drug and alcohol abuse. However, the referee found the failure to disclose the facts was unintentional, and absent a showing of actual bias defendant was not entitled to relief.id: 23206
The trial court did not err by refusing to excuse a juror who reported that defendant intimidated her when they made eye contact. The trial court did not err by denying defendant’s mistrial motion and refusing to excuse a juror who told the court she made eye contact with defendant and thought he intimidated or threatened her. She was entitled to rely upon what she observed in the courtroom when evaluating the case, and the defendant cannot benefit from his own disruptive behavior. While the juror may have committed misconduct by sharing her observations with the others, any prejudice was rebutted by the court’s instruction that the juror’s should draw no inferences from what another juror observed.id: 23317
The trial court did not err by discharging a penalty phase juror who was heavily distressed about, and incapable of making a penalty decision. The trial court did not err by discharging a juror during the penalty phase who informed the court that she was stressed out, couldn’t sleep, couldn’t focus and was incapable of making a decision. The court did not err by failing to ask other jurors about the issue where the source of the anxiety was the penalty decision itself, and any questioning may have intruded on the deliberation process. The court also did not err by failing to require newly constituted jury to begin guilt phase deliberations anew.id: 23303
The trial court did not err by refusing to discharge a juror who became aware during the penalty phase that he knew two deputy sheriff witnesses.During the prosecutor’s penalty phase opening statement, he said that two deputies would testify about incidents involving defendant while he was in jail. A juror came forward and told the judge that he had done some maintenance work at the jail and that he knew both of the deputies mentioned. The trial court did not thereafter err by denying defendant’s motion to discharge that juror where the record supported the judge’s ruling that the juror did not prejudge any issues or show any actual bias.id: 23302
A juror did not commit misconduct by venting to her husband that she was confused about something in the case without describing any facts. The foreperson sent the judge a note indicating that one of the jurors had discussed the case with her husband. It was later shown that the juror told her husband she was confused about something in the case but she provided no details. There was no misconduct and the court did not err in refusing to discharge the juror.id: 23277
The trial court did not err in denying release of juror information where the use of toy cars to show the position of the cars before the crash did not amount to an improper experiment during deliberations.Defendant was convicted of gross vehicular manslaughter. He learned that a juror had purchased two cars to use as props during deliberations. Defense counsel later sought juror identifying information so that he could contact the jurors to investigate juror misconduct. The trial court did not err in denying his request for juror contact information because there was no misconduct. The jurors did not conduct an improper experiment by simply using the toy cars as visual aids showing the relative positioning of the cars in the crash.id: 23118
The jury foreman did not commit misconduct by refusing another juror’s request for a readback of testimony where the other jurors told him they did not want a readback.Defendant argued the jury foreman committed misconduct by refusing to honor another juror’s request to have certain testimony reread. However, the requested testimony was lengthy and the other jurors told the foreman they did not want the readback. The foreman did not commit misconduct.id: 23125
Jurors did not commit misconduct by using a watch to time a period in question.The deliberating jury did not commit misconduct by using a watch to time a period in question in order to consider the events that could have taken place in that period. Defendant did not show the “experiment” went beyond the admitted evidence.id: 22887
The deliberating jurors’ discussion of the death of a collateral witness’s wife was harmless.Jurors may have erred during deliberations by discussing the death of a witness’s wife, but there was no harm where the witness was not key to the case, the court instructed them not to discuss the incident and there was no suggestion that defendant was involved.id: 22642
There was no juror misconduct where a prospective juror who did not sit on the jury heard the defendant threaten to assault the prosecutor.During individualized Hovey voir dire at the second penalty trial, one prospective juror heard defendant say he wanted to assault the prosecutor as he had nothing to lose. However, there was no juror misconduct in being exposed to this outburst since no sitting juror heard the remark.id: 22829
The trial court did not err by failing to investigate juror misconduct where one of the jurors was a law student who read his property law textbook during breaks. The trial court did not err by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing to investigate possible juror misconduct during the penalty phase. The jury foreperson was a first year law student who had not studied criminal law or procedure and brought his property law textbook to read during breaks. There was no misconduct to investigate.id: 22269
Jurors did not commit misconduct by substituting a single factor used in an expert witness’s formula as long as it did not use extrinsic evidence. Where the jurors did not rely on extraneous materials or evidence, or conduct an improper experiment, it was not misconduct for them to reject and correct what appeared to them to be an expert’s formulaic miscalculation of the anticipated yield of an indoor marijuana garden. id: 22494
A new trial may not be granted for jury misconduct absent sworn juror affidavits.A verdict may be overturned and a new trial granted for jury misconduct demonstrated by the sworn affidavit of a juror. Here, both parties presented unsworn juror statements and, at the urging of the trial court, agreed to waive any objections to the unsworn statements in order to allow the trial court to reach the merits of the juror misconduct issue. However, a new trial may not be granted in the absence of sworn juror affidavits establishing misconduct.id: 22016
The trial court adequately questioned jurors regarding two incidents involving contact between sitting jurors and third parties.There were two incidents in the trial where jurors had contacts with third parties. The first incident involved two notes someone left on Juror No. 9's windshield in the parking lot. Juror No. 12 saw a note on the windshield. The court questioned Juror No. 9, and learned the notes had been left by a friend and that it would not affect his service. Juror No. 12 said the note would not impact him. The other jurors were informed of the incident and said it would not affect them. The parties were satisfied. The second incident involved Juror No. 7 overhearing people in the parking lot say they wouldn’t want to be jurors in this trial. No. 7 was questioned and said it wouldn’t impact him. The others were not told of the incident. The trial court did not err by failing to inquire further of the jurors regarding these incidents.id: 21886
The trial court did not err by refusing to hold a hearing involving possible juror misconduct based on a juror’s statement that she was aware of a media report that she had an affair with another juror. The trial court did not err by failing to conduct a hearing into possible juror misconduct based on statements made during a post-trial press conference in which several jurors participated. A juror addressed media rumors that she had an affair with another juror. She denied watching any media reports about the trial, but may have been told by a nonjuror who saw the media report. However, the issue had nothing to do with defendant’s guilt or the jury’s deliberations. The trial court did not err by denying the motion for a hearing.id: 21940
Questioning juror about her reported sympathy during guilt phase deliberations did not interfere with deliberations or coerce a verdict. After being informed by one of the jurors that Juror No. 8 was sympathetic to the defendant and not deliberating, the court interviewed Juror No. 8. The court asked the juror whether her feelings of sympathy were interfering with her deliberations and she responded they were not. The court’s questioning in this regard did not interfere with the secrecy of the deliberations, was not overly intrusive, and did not improperly coerce a guilty verdict. id: 21872
Jurors did not commit misconduct during deliberations by performing improper experiments since the demonstration with the protractor in the jury room and one juror’s use of a computer at home merely allowed them to evaluate the evidence presented.The trial court erroneously found juror misconduct during deliberations based on two incidents - one involving the use of a string and protractor to evaluate the evidence regarding bullet trajectory and the other involving a juror’s use of a computer at home to evaluate the evidence regarding the relative positions of the shooter and the victim. Neither event involved a juror’s acquisition of new extrinsic evidence, but rather amounted to methods of considering the evidence presented. There was no misconduct.id: 21590
Heated discussion during deliberations which resulted in stress requiring the dismissal of a holdout juror did not amount to misconduct.The trial court granted the juror’s request to be excused during penalty phase deliberations. The court found the juror was incapable of deliberating due to great mental stress that was a product of the discussion during deliberations. First, the court was not required to question the remaining jurors because doing so may have intruded into the deliberative process. Next, trial-related stress can provide good cause to dismiss a juror. Moreover, evidence presented at the new trial motion contradicted the excused juror’s claim that the others had failed to deliberate at the guilt phase.id: 21596
There was no prejudicial misconduct where a juror told her husband (A DA investigator) that the foreperson refused to disclose the results of an informal juror poll.Juror No. 9 went home after deliberating and complained to her husband who was an investigator in the D.A.’s office that the foreperson would not reveal the numerical split to the jurors. The husband then passed the information along to the prosecutor. While it was misconduct to say anything about matters occurring during deliberations, any error was harmless where the juror did not reveal any content of the deliberations and maintained that she could be fair. Moreover, the issue was waived where defense counsel failed to request that the juror be discharged.id: 21207
A juror who said he could be fair during voir dire did not conceal a bias despite his posttrial statement that recidivists should be “caned.”A juror who declared after trial that recidivists should be “caned” as they are in Singapore did not conceal his bias during voir dire when he said he could be impartial because there is no necessary relation between a person’s ability to be fair and his or her philosophy of punishment.id: 21206
There was no prejudicial juror misconduct where the foreman
read the others a note from his friend thanking them for jury service.There was no prejudicial juror misconduct where the foreman read the others a note from his friend thanking them for jury service.id: 21001
Habeas petition failed to prove at the evidentiary hearing that a trial juror had a prior relationship with the murder victim. The capital defendant argued in his habeas corpus petition that one of the trial jurors was biased due to a previous relationship with the victim. Following the issuance of an order to show cause, a referee at the evidentiary hearing concluded the juror was not personally acquainted with the victim although there was testimony both ways. However, giving great weight to the referee’s credibility determinations, defendant failed to prove juror bias or misconduct by failing to disclose a prior relationship, by prejudging the penalty issue or by refusing to deliberate on the issue of penalty.id: 20930
The trial court did not err in finding the investigator’s unsworn reports describing juror misconduct did not justify an evidentiary hearing.Defendant argued that prejudicial juror misconduct occurred at the penalty phase and presented the report of a private investigator who interviewed several jurors. However, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the investigator’s unsworn reports did not constitute a basis for holding an evidentiary hearing.id: 21045
The juror misconduct in looking up dictionary definitions of "aggravate" and "mitigate" was not prejudicial.A juror committed misconduct during penalty phase deliberations by looking up dictionary definitions of "aggravate" and "mitigate." However, the jury was properly instructed under Penal Code section 190.3, factor (k) and there was no reasonable probability of harm from the misconduct.id: 20087
Deliberating jurors’ references to their own sexual experiences at defendant’s SVP trial did not show misconduct and there was no reversible error in refusing to unseal juror identifying information. After defendant’s SVP trial, the court ordered the jury identifying information sealed. Defendant petitioned under Code of Civil Procedure sections 206, subd.(g) and 237 to unseal the information to support the filing of a motion for new trial based on jury misconduct. Defendant first argued the court’s authority to seal juror information is limited to criminal proceedings, which an SVP trial is not. However, even if the court erred in sealing the information, defendant failed to show reversible error in failing to unseal it. The comments made by older jurors about their own sexual experiences were based on their life experiences and did not constitute misconduct. Likewise, the claim that two holdout jurors were pressured showed nothing more than ordinary give and take of deliberations.id: 20808
The trial court could rule on the credibility of a juror reporting misconduct of another juror without conducting an evidentiary hearing.Defendant alleged that a juror committed misconduct by prejudging guilt during the first week of trial. Juror No. 151 was the only person who attested to the claimed statement demonstrating the misconduct. However, the trial court found Juror No. 151 was not credible and rejected the claim. Contrary to defendant’s claim, the court could rule on the credibility of the reporting juror without conducting an evidentiary hearing.id: 20809
Any misconduct from the juror’s online research was harmless where the online search produced no results. Defendant argued that Juror No. 63 committed misconduct by telling fellow jurors he did an online search for definitions of “great bodily injury”. However, the presumption of prejudice from any misconduct was rebutted by the finding that the juror’s online search produced no information.id: 20807
The presence in the jury room of a cartoon referencing lengthy deliberations did not constitute juror misconduct.A cartoon circulated in the jury room during penalty phase deliberations. The cartoon referenced the difficulty in lengthy deliberations. However, the cartoon did not suggest the jurors should favor one side over the other or rush deliberations. There was no juror misconduct and no duty for a more detailed inquiry by the trial court.id: 20543
A juror who told others that discharge of a holdout would result in further deliberations was not professing expertise in judicial practices.Defendant argued that one juror's dissuasion of another from asking the trial court to discharge a holdout juror constituted prejudicial misconduct. However, the "offending" juror who informed the others a discharge would just result in further deliberations was not professing any legal expertise but rather an opinion based upon a life experience. There was no prejudicial misconduct.id: 19563
Jury did not commit misconduct or violate defendant's right of confrontation by turning on a radio scanner during deliberations which defendant testified was not operational.Defendant was arrested for drug possession after police found marijuana in his jacket. Defendant told police at the time that the jacket was his, but later testified at trial that it was not. Police also found a portable radio scanner in the car which was set on the police channel. At trial defendant argued the scanner was not operational, and would shut off almost immediately after being activated. During deliberations, the jury turned on the scanner and found it worked fine. Contrary to defendant's claim, the jury did not commit misconduct. Moreover, the jury's consideration of the scanner evidence did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to confront the evidence. While jurors may not conduct experiments exploring new areas, they may carry out experiments within the lines of the offered evidence.id: 16604
Discharge of entire panel or certain jurors was not required after the court was informed the jury could not further deliberate because of prejudiced remarks by two opinionated jurors.Defendant argued the trial court erred in failing to conduct an adequate inquiry and in failing to discharge jurors once it learned several jurors indicated prejudice toward defendant. The court's inquiry showed a disagreement arose among the jurors after two strongly opinionated jurors made prejudiced remarks and several other jurors concluded they could no longer deliberate with those jurors. There was no deadlock on a substantive issue regarding guilt. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that no juror misconduct had occurred warranting discharge of the entire jury or of individual jurors.id: 12656
Despite the court's passing reference to a juror sleeping while an objection was being argued, the court did not abuse its discretion by not conducting an inquiry.While discussing a legal objection, the trial court commented that a juror was sleeping. However, the court reasonably noted the juror's conduct did not require an inquiry. Defense counsel did not assert juror misconduct and did not request a hearing. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by not conducting an inquiry.id: 12655
New trial motion was properly denied on the basis that the juror was mentally incompetent at the guilt phase where the juror was discharged at the penalty phase after exhibiting signs of extreme stress.During the penalty phase a juror was discharged after demonstrating emotional problems which resulted in tardiness and, ultimately, a failure to appear for a morning session. Defendant later moved for a new trial on the theory that the juror was mentally incompetent at the guilt phase. However, the record showed the juror was experiencing stress resulting from family and financial problems which affected her ability to concentrate and retain information. The problem peaked during the penalty phase. However, there was no indication she had ever needed or received psychiatric care or counseling, or that she lacked the ability to receive, process, or exchange information. The trial court properly denied the new trial motion.id: 15932
Trial court properly prevented counsel from inquiring into a juror's subjective thought process during a juror misconduct hearing. Defendant argued in a new trial motion that a juror had committed misconduct during the penalty phase by discussing the case with her employer. The trial court did not err during the hearing by disallowing questions regarding the juror's reluctance to vote for the death penalty before the conversation with her boss since the question impermissibly intruded into the juror's deliberative process.id: 19822
The juror's misconduct in refusing to deliberate after reaching a fixed conclusion as to guilt was not prejudicial as the remaining jurors reached the same conclusion.A juror committed misconduct by expressing a fixed conclusion at the beginning of deliberations and failing to participate in the process. However, the error was not prejudicial as there was no
question regarding his impartiality and the remaining 11 jurors separately reached the same conclusion.id: 19620
Brevity of deliberations after substituting an alternate juror did not establish that the jurors disregarded the court's instruction to begin anew.During guilt phase deliberations, defendant argued the fact that the jury thereafter returned a guilty verdict within two and one-half hours showed that after substituting an alternate juror they failed to disregard their earlier deliberations and begin anew as they were instructed. However, the brevity of the
deliberations does not prove the jurors disregarded the court's instruction to start over.id: 19621
Juror's reliance on his personal experience with firearms to form an opinion about the accuracy of the murder weapon was not misconduct. Juror declarations in support of a new trial motion showed a juror expressed an opinion about the accuracy of a weapon
relying on his personal experience. His action did not constitute misconduct since jurors may rely on their own experiences when evaluating evidence.id: 19622
Jurors discussion about why defendant did not testify at the penalty phase was not prejudicial where they did not draw a negative inference from the absence of testimony. The jurors committed misconduct at the penalty phase by discussing defendant's failure to testify but the misconduct was not prejudicial where the jurors did not punish defendant for not
testifying but merely wondered by he did not.id: 19624
It was not misconduct for the jurors to discuss defendant's demeanor during deliberations in a sanity trial.Defendant argued that several jurors considered his behavior during the sanity phase in determining whether he was sane at the time of the offense which he claimed was improper because it was not part of the evidence at trial. However, he cited no authority for the principle that it is misconduct for a jury to discuss a defendant's demeanor during a sanity trial. It was not error in the present case where the defense expert expressly analyzed the defendant's demeanor during trial.id: 19444
The trial court properly removed a deliberating juror who discussed the case with his wife to clear his head.The trial court properly discharged a deliberating juror who
admitted that he had discussed the case at home with his wife and that his doubt was removed by the discussion.id: 19218
The trial court did not err in discharging a sleeping juror.The trial court did not abuse its discretion in discharging a juror who appeared to have fallen asleep, and who the foreperson testified had twice fallen asleep during deliberations.id: 19195
Hearsay comments regarding disparaging remarks about the process made by a juror did not require an evidentiary hearing at which the juror would be compelled to testify.The trial court did not err by refusing to hold a posttrial evidentiary hearing on juror misconduct based on hearsay evidence that a juror, in talking to his employer, made
disparaging remarks about the court, counsel and the process. The statement had no bearing on guilt or innocence and thus, did not create a strong possibility of prejudicial juror misconduct. id: 19074
Trial court's post-hearing finding that no juror misconduct occurred was supported by substantial evidence.Defendant alleged juror misconduct and presented declarations from two nonjurors describing conversations they had with the subject juror regarding the case. Following a hearing, the trial court credited the testimony of the juror over that of the two witnesses and found that no misconduct had occurred. Because the finding was supported by substantial evidence, it was entitled to deference on appeal.id: 18763
The mention of the possibility that a death verdict could be commuted was not prejudicial juror misconduct at the penalty phase.Defendant moved for a new trial based upon juror misconduct at the penalty phase. Declarations established that either before or during deliberations, the jurors briefly discussed the possibility that defendant would be released despite any verdict of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, and also discussed television episodes dramatizing such an event. However, a prediction regarding the commutation of a death verdict is probably unavoidable during the give and take of deliberations with a jury of diverse backgrounds and experiences. Such comments could not impeach a unanimous verdict.id: 18765
The juror's fear of an intruder a decade earlier (despite her claim on the questionnaire that she never feared violence) did not likely influence her role as a juror.Defendant moved for a new trial based on juror misconduct where a juror indicated in her questionnaire that she never feared violence, and it was later discovered that, for a period of time, she feared intruders and slept with a knife under her bed. However, the court did not err in denying the motion where the juror's fear of an intruder over a decade earlier was highly unlikely to have influenced her role as a juror.id: 18746
Jurors' exposure to newspaper articles reporting on the penalty phase did not require reversal of the death verdict.Defendant argued certain jurors committed misconduct by reading newspaper articles about the case during penalty phase deliberations. The court rejected the jurors statements that they read the articles only after they reached a decision but before the verdict was announced. However, the error was harmless where the articles contained nothing the jurors did not already hear, and the evidence supporting the death verdict was overwhelming.id: 18211
Jurors request to speak with defendant about his spiritual well-being before closing arguments at the penalty phase did not show misconduct.Prior to closing arguments at the guilt phase three jurors asked to speak with defendant. Thereafter, the court questioned the jurors. Defendant argued the court's questioning nullified any sympathy the jurors may have had. However, nothing indicated that the jurors had started deliberating and had formed any tentative conclusions as to a penalty. The note indicated the jurors were concerned with defendant's spiritual well-being. Because the note did not raise the possibility of juror misconduct, the court had no duty to inquire into the jurors' motives.id: 18212
The juror did not commit prejudicial misconduct during the guilt phase deliberations by telling the others of his own drug use and suggesting drug use would not cause the defendant to act as he did.Following an evidentiary hearing, a referee found that a juror stated during guilt phase deliberations that he had personal experience with drug abuse, and that the defendant either lied abut the amount of drugs he had taken or about the effects of the drugs on him. Defendant argued juror misconduct in that the statements may have led jurors to convict him based on these statements rather than the evidence presented at trial. However, the juror's comments simply reflected his own experience in a nontechnical matter. Even if the comments constituted misconduct, there was no prejudice in light of the mild and brief nature of the comments and the lack of insistence by the juror that his experience should convince the others to discredit the defense presented.id: 18025
When the trial court grants a criminal defendant's motion for a new trial based on prejudicial juror misconduct, the trial court's ruling is reviewed for abuse of discretion.When a trial court, after examining all of the relevant circumstances, grants a new trial in a criminal case on grounds that proven juror misconduct was prejudicial, that determination is not (as in the case where the court denies the defendant's motion) subject to independent or de novo review on appeal, but may be affirmed unless it constituted an abuse of discretion.id: 18035
Absent a defense request, the court did not err by failing to discharge a juror in the guilt phase who admitted dreaming about the case and requested photographs of the victims.During the guilt trial a juror asked to see photographs of the victims while alive so that he could have a more complete picture of the case. He noted having dreams about the trial and wanted to see the faces for his own peace of mind. The court did not err by failing to discharge the juror (absent a defense request) because there was no showing that he was unable to serve. The fact that he may have shown sympathy for the victims did not establish a disqualifying bias. That he was admonished not to discuss his situation with others, and later told an alternate about his questioning from the court on the issue, did not show disobedience but rather that he understood that he could mention the nature of the questioning without going into the specifics.id: 17935
Court did not err in failing to conduct a hearing on juror misconduct despite some evidence of fear of gang retaliation after the death verdict.The trial court did not err by failing to hold a hearing for alleged juror misconduct where jurors indicated after the death verdict that they feared retaliation from defendant's gang. However, a police officer had told the jurors defendant had not been active, and in fact was not welcome in, his former gang. Defendant did not show a strong possibility that prejudicial misconduct occurred.id: 17511
Juror did not err in discussing sociopaths during deliberations since the topic was addressed at trial, and she simply gave an opinion on the topic.Defendant argued a juror committed misconduct by explaining the term "sociopath" to the others and explaining how it might apply to defendant. The juror, a nurse, did not bring extraneous information into the deliberations. She did not claim to be an expert, she just rendered an opinion on a technical subject that was presented during the case.id: 17481
Juror did not commit misconduct by sarcastically remarking during penalty phase deliberations that defendant might escape if given a life term.A juror did not commit misconduct by remarking during penalty phase deliberations that defendant might escape if given a life sentence. While the remark might literally amount to bringing an extraneous fact into the jury room, it appears here to have been made sarcastically or in jest. It would be almost impossible to prevent such remarks during deliberations.id: 17482
Court did not err by failing to discharge a juror who expressed concerns about the safety of his family.Defendant argued the court should have removed a juror for cause after the juror informed the court he feared the defendant. In a note to the court, the juror asked if the defendant had access to the questionnaires, and he was concerned for his family and property. The court informed the jury the defendant had no access to the sealed questionnaires, and that any juror who questioned his or her ability to be fair should inform the court in writing. The court's handling of the situation was satisfactory.id: 17313
After being informed that a juror was requesting multiple read backs for improper reasons, the court did not coerce a verdict by admonishing the jury to deliberate responsibly.During deliberations, the foreperson sent the judge a note asking for "help" with a "difficult" juror. The primary problem was the repeated demands by the juror for lengthy read backs which the other jurors believed was a method to extend his paid jury service. The court then reinstructed the jury on the need to deliberate responsibly. After the admonition, the jury reached a "quick" death verdict. Defendant argued the admonition amounted to coercion. However, defense counsel had not previously objected to the court's response. Moreover, the court did not abuse its discretion by failing to question the accused juror in private to determine the nature of the problem. id: 17178
Court did not err by refusing to discharge four jurors who witnessed or were victimized by a purse snatcher during a lunch break.During the guilt phase of the trial, four jurors were returning from the lunch break when one was knocked to the ground by a man who took her purse. When questioned regarding the incident she acknowledged she was upset but said she could continue. Defendant moved to have all four jurors discharged since the incident had similarities to the present offense. The two hearings on the purse snatching were adequate to determine that the jurors could be fair. Moreover, the court did not err by failing to separate the jurors during the questioning.id: 16846
Court properly refused to consider evidence of jurors' thought processes - that an LWOP defendant could be paroled - to impeach a death verdict.In a new trial motion, the defense submitted declarations from two jurors that they voted for the death penalty because they did not believe a sentence of life without parole actually meant the defendant could not be paroled. However, under Evidence Code section 1150, the trial court properly refused to consider these statements regarding the jurors' thought processes. Contrary to defendant's claim, the prohibition on evidence of a juror's thought process to impeach a verdict does not violate the Sixth, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, it does not violate the truth-in-evidence provision of the California Constitution (article 1, section 28(d)) because a juror's thought process is not relevant to any legal issue.id: 16819
Penalty phase jurors did not commit misconduct by injecting extraneous information regarding their own Viet Nam war experiences into the deliberations.In a new trial motion, defendant presented declarations from two jurors stating that other jurors injected extraneous information into the deliberations. Specifically, the View Nam war veteran jurors rejected the trial testimony that defendant experienced combat in the war (due to the dates he was in Viet Nam) and that he was taught to kill in military school. Moreover, the jurors challenged the validity of a medical test used by defense experts to show brain damage. However, the views of the jurors were within the range of permissible interpretations of the evidence. The declarations did not so clearly show that the jurors crossed the line into misconduct as to have required the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing.id: 16820
Juror did not commit misconduct during penalty phase deliberations by advising another juror to let Jesus Christ help her decide and that defendant would have "everlasting life."Following the death verdict, a juror submitted a declaration stating that one juror (Sally B) was having difficulty with the decision and another juror (Paul W) responded that Jesus Christ had helped him decide and that defendant would have "everlasting life." Shortly thereafter, the jury returned a death verdict. Paul W. later sent the book "Born Again" to both defendant and defense counsel. The trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a hearing to investigate jury misconduct. The court correctly found the proffered evidence was inadmissible under Evidence Code section 1150, subd.(a) since it involved the juror's reasoning process. The exception for juror misconduct did not apply. The jury system is fundamentally human and that jurors consider their religious beliefs during penalty deliberations is to be expected.id: 16390
Penalty phase juror's prediction that a death sentence would be commuted was not misconduct but rather an offhand comment made during the give-and-take of deliberations.Defendant moved for a new trial based on juror misconduct where a juror stated during deliberations that the judge would likely commute a death sentence to life in prison. However, this was the kind of statement jurors might make in the give-and-take of deliberations. Not all comments are logical or correct. The introduction of much of what might be considered "extraneous law" cannot be deemed misconduct. The court did not err in denying the motion.id: 15962
The jurors did not commit prejudicial misconduct by briefly discussing the possibility of appellate reversal or parole where the focus of the deliberations was on the relevant facts and law.During penalty phase deliberations, the jurors read a newspaper article about the death penalty which mentioned reversals on appeal as well as the subject of parole. There was no juror misconduct where the discussion were brief, and prompted by defense counsel's closing argument. This is especially true where most of the deliberations focused on the facts of the case and factors in aggravation and mitigation. Even if the jurors did commit misconduct, the presumption of prejudice was rebutted where it was determined that the improper discussion did not contribute to the jury's decision to impose the death penalty.id: 15964
The trial court did not err in questioning the jury regarding its numerical divisions as to count two without defendant or defense counsel being present.Defendant argued the trial court erred in questioning the jury at the close of the second day of its guilt phase deliberations, and outside the presence of defendant or counsel regarding its numerical division as to count two, involving murder of the fetus. However, the jury need not indicate a possible deadlock before the court may inquire into its division. Nor did the court's focus on count two seem unduly coercive or restrictive. The jury's request for a read back of testimony of a witness regarding the fetus charge suggested the jury had turned its attention to that count. The trial court's procedure was not erroneous, and in any event, did not prejudice defendant.id: 15968
A juror's dissent after the verdict was complete did not require the court to reconvene the jury.Defendant argued the trial court erred in refusing to reconvene the jury after a juror expressed doubts about the verdict. The verdict was complete once it was read and received by the clerk, acknowledged by the jury and recorded. The last moment for a juror to dissent expires when the verdict is complete, rather than when the trial court discharges the jury or otherwise loses its ability to shield the jury from outside influences.id: 15946
Belated disclosure that two jurors knew the victim's family did not deprive defendant of a fair trial.The failure of the court to excuse two jurors who, subsequent to being sworn, indicated they knew members of the victim's family, did not deprive defendant of a fair trial. The relationship between the jurors and the victim's family was extremely distant and the jurors stated they would evaluate the case impartially. The presumption of prejudice was overcome by the circumstances and content of the nondisclosure, as well as the strength of the case.id: 15949
By suggesting after trial that he had buddies/friends in law enforcement, the juror's voir dire statements did not constitute concealment where it was later determined his "buddies" were simply acquaintances and not close friends.Defendant argued the jury foreman concealed facts during voir dire that would have revealed a potential for bias. While the juror later told a defense investigator he had "buddies" who were correctional officers, he testified at the new trial motion that although he used the word "buddies," he was really referring to acquaintances. Therefore, he did not lie in voir dire when he stated he had no close friends or relatives in law enforcement. He also referred to a "cousin" in law enforcement. However, he testified he used the term "cousin" loosely, and his sister's husband's brother was not a close friend or relative. Finally, the juror did not lie in stating in voir dire that he does not know any drug users or sellers despite the fact that his wife sold drugs as a teenager, because the question was phrased in the present tense and the activity took place before the juror met his wife.id: 15950
Court did not err in denying new trial motion based on juror misconduct where the only evidence offered on the issue of juror's receipt of news accounts of defendant's background came from trial counsel rather than the juror.Defendant moved for a new trial based upon the improper receipt by a juror during trial of news regarding acquittals in two prior murder trials and defendant's incarceration at Leavenworth federal penitentiary. However, the only evidence of the juror misconduct were the statements of trial counsel and the defense investigator. No statement, sworn or unsworn, by the juror was offered. Moreover, the court had before it competent evidence that the misconduct did not occur. The court did not abuse its discretion in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing where defense counsel offered nothing to suggest that further inquiry by the court into the misconduct claim would have been productive.id: 15953
Court did not err in failing to dismiss juror who saw defendant in shackles.Capital defendant argued the court erred in failing to dismiss a juror who saw defendant in shackles outside the courthouse. However, the court questioned the juror and received her assurance that the incident would not prejudice her and she would not mention it to the other jurors.id: 15954
Declarations showing jurors' mental processes were insufficient to support the claim of juror misconduct.Defendants were convicted of organizing an endless chain scheme in violation of Penal code section 327. In support of a new trial motion defendants submitted declarations from two jurors stating their belief that section 327 included mere participation in a chain scheme. However, the declarations did not show the jurors disregarded the court's instructions. The statements were merely a reflection of the jurors' mental process. As such, they were inadmissible under Evidence Code section 1150. In the absence of admissible evidence, the motion for new trial was properly denied.id: 15956
Juror did not commit prejudicial misconduct by failing to disclose, during voir dire, that she had prejudged the case.During voir dire in a capital case, a juror acknowledged reading newspaper accounts of the story, but she did not mention other pretrial exposure. Several years after the trial it was discovered that the juror had also received information on the case from a neighbor, and that the juror stated the defendant's version of the facts was "ridiculous." Evidence supported the referee's findings that the juror's omissions on voir dire were inadvertent, not intentional. Moreover, even if her skepticism of defendant's story constituted a prejudgment of guilt, there was no indication that she retained her opinion about guilt at the time she was selected to serve on the jury. Petitioner did not establish a substantial likelihood of actual bias.id: 15958
Juror did not commit prejudicial misconduct in penalty phase deliberations by commenting briefly on the lack of executions in California.The juror did not commit prejudicial misconduct during penalty phase deliberations in commenting on the lack of executions in California. This was a single reference to matters of which the jury had some independent knowledge since, at the time of trial (1986), the fact that certain Supreme Court Justices in California were reluctant to impose the death penalty was well publicized.id: 15959
Juror's comment to newspaper "We need a deterrent" following death verdict did not require hearing on misconduct where there was no indication deterrence was considered during deliberations.After the verdict, a juror was quoted in a newspaper suggesting the death penalty is a necessary deterrent. Defendant arguably should have been permitted to investigate whether the jury discussed the improper subject of deterrence during deliberations. However, defendant failed to show an abuse of discretion in declining to hold a hearing on misconduct because telling a newspaper "We need a deterrent" does not suggest any jurors considered deterrence while deliberating. Moreover, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to compel the jurors' phone numbers and addresses. Under the standard applicable at the time, defendant was required to show he attempted to contact the jurors through other means, which he did not do.id: 15960
Juror did not commit misconduct by stating he had taken a course in body language and believed defendant was lying.A juror told others that he had taken a course in body language, and his observations of defendant's body language suggested he was lying. The trial court stated it was obvious to everyone that defendant was lying. Defendant argued the juror committed misconduct by implying he had special expertise in the area of evaluating credibility. However, the juror did not describe himself as an expert nor was there any reason to consider him as such. Jurors are allowed to use their life experiences in performing their duties. Evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that no misconduct occurred.id: 15024
Jurors' inadvertent exposure to news reports of death verdict for codefendant did not require discharge of those jurors or impanelling of a new jury.Codefendant's jury returned a death verdict prior to the commencement of defendant's penalty trial. Parties had stipulated that the verdict would remain sealed. The court later unsealed the verdict which was widely reported in the press. Two jurors committed misconduct in reading newspaper articles relating to the verdict. However, the court conducted a hearing and found that both jurors could remain impartial. The inquiry was sufficient to rebut any presumption of prejudice that may have arisen from the jurors' inadvertent exposure to the news reports of the verdict.id: 12683
Jury's use of defendant's keys to open the victim's safe was not a prohibited experiment as it was within the purview of the offered evidence.During deliberations, the jury found one of defendant's keys opened the safe which contained personal items belonging to the murder victims. Defendant argued the opening of the safe by the jury was a prohibited experiment and, therefore, he was denied his right to a trial by jury and to be present when evidence is taken. However, this careful scrutiny of the evidence was not a prohibited experiment as it was within the scope and purview of the evidence, and did not invade a new field.id: 12685
No error in failing to inquire whether other jurors were improperly affected by juror misconduct.After a witness testified a juror approached her in the hallway and had a brief conversation. That juror was excused the next day when she presented a doctor's note stating that she was suffering from a severe anxiety attack. Defendant argued the trial court erred in failing to inquire whether other jurors were improperly affected by the sick juror's misconduct. However, such an inquiry was not required where there was no indication on the record that other jurors may have been improperly affected.id: 12687
No formal hearing was required where the court conducted a self-directed inquiry into the possibility that jurors were dozing.Defendant argued the court erred in failing to conduct a hearing after counsel called to the court's attention the fact that certain jurors were "dozing off" during the presentation of penalty phase evidence. However, the record revealed that the court was constantly alert to the danger of the jurors' dozing and closely observed the offending members. Thus, the court undertook a self-directed inquiry, short of a formal hearing, that recognized the conflict between the need for a fair trial by 12 competent jurors and the undesirability of interrupting the proceedings whenever a question of juror inattention is raised.id: 12688
No prejudicial jury misconduct occurred where prospective jurors read a newspaper article regarding another death penalty case.Defendant argued prejudicial jury misconduct occurred when two prospective jurors who did not serve on his jury read a newspaper article about another capital trial. The defendant in the case reported in the article stated his conviction would be reversed and he would not be executed. The instant defendant argued the article prejudiced him by lessening the jury's sense of responsibility. Defendant was not prejudiced as neither prospective juror who read the article served on the jury. Defendant raised a similar claim regarding a news article printed during trial which suggested the instant prosecutor prosecuted only guilty recidivists. There was no prejudice where only two jurors read the article, the jury was told to disregard the article, and it did not reflect on the issue of defendant's guilt or innocence.id: 12689
No prejudicial misconduct occurred where a juror brought a cellular telephone into the jury deliberation room.Defendant argued that jury misconduct occurred during both phases of trial when a juror brought a cellular telephone into the deliberation room. Before doing so, the juror sought permission from the bailiff who approved the request. While the court disapproved of the practice of allowing a cellular telephone into the jury deliberation room, the juror did so only after he believed he had permission to do so and defendant offered no evidence to suggest the telephone was ever used for an improper purpose or that its presence distracted jurors.id: 12690
Single juror's comment that the jury considered defendant's failure to testify was not supported by the record.Following the conviction, one juror stated in an affidavit that the jurors discussed defendant's failure to testify and it was a factor in the decision to convict. Defendant argued that this amounted to prejudicial juror misconduct. However, the remainder of the jurors were questioned and while some remembered a brief comment on the failure to testify that was immediately squelched, others did not recall such incident. The court then rejected the lone juror's comments regarding the misconduct and this action was amply supported by the record.id: 12694
Testimony of defendant's aunt did not constitute clear and convincing evidence that two jurors slept during closing argument.At a motion for a new trial hearing, defendant's aunt testified two jurors appeared to be sleeping during defense counsel's closing argument. However, this testimony did not constitute clear and convincing proof that the jurors were actually asleep during that portion of the trial. The trial court did not err in denying the new trial motion based upon juror misconduct.id: 12697
The court did not err in failing to inquire of two jurors whether they discussed with others a third juror's statement to them that he believed he was followed home by a prosecuting witness.During the penalty phase a juror told the court that he had been followed home by a prosecution witness - defendant's former friend. The juror also informed two other jurors of this fact. The trial court did not err in failing to ask these two jurors whether they had discussed the matter with other jurors. No such inquiry was requested and defense counsel stated he was totally satisfied with the court's actions.id: 12698
The jury's reenactment of the evidence did not constitute the receipt of evidence out of court and was not misconduct.Defendant was charged with robbery. During deliberations, certain jurors performed an experiment where they strapped the duffel bag around their necks in the fashion indicated at trial in an attempt to see if the bag was easily and quickly removable. If the bag was easily removable, this would support a conclusion that the accused intended to escape with the bag. The experiment did not constitute misconduct because it was based on evidence received in court.id: 12700
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in not conducting an inquiry into juror bias where a juror wrote a note indicating he worked at the high school the victim's daughter attended.During the trial a juror sent a note to the court stating that he worked as a guidance counselor at a high school and the murder victim's daughter was a senior at that school. He stated that he never spoke with the girl about the case and did not become aware of the connection until the daughter testified. No evidence of juror bias was presented here. Nothing in the note indicated the juror had developed special feelings for the daughter or her family. Defense counsel informed the court there was no reason for an inquiry. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that no further inquiry into the matter was necessary.id: 12702
There was no prejudicial juror misconduct where dictionaries found in the jury room highlighted legal terms as jurors stated they used the definitions in the jury instructions.During deliberations the court found two dictionaries in the jury room, one with post-its by the words aid, commission, deliberate and principle. However, the presumption of prejudice was rebutted where the court admonished the jury to disregard dictionary definitions and each juror responded when polled that the verdict was based upon definitions in the jury instructions.id: 12704
Trial court erred in finding prejudicial misconduct based on a juror's receipt of information regarding defendant's earlier death sentence.Defendant was convicted of multiple murders and sex offenses in a Santa Cruz case for which he was ultimately sentenced to death. In a separate case defendant was charged with several murders and the case was transferred to San Diego County after the change of venue motion was granted. A San Diego juror learned of the death sentence in the earlier trial and shared the information with others who were not on the jury. After a verdict of guilt on all charges defendant was sentenced to death by the San Diego jury. After granting a petition for habeas corpus based on juror misconduct for the juror's receipt of outside information the trial court vacated the judgment. However, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's action finding any error was harmless where the juror did not inform other jurors of the extraneous information regarding the earlier death sentence and there was no evidence suggesting the information influenced her verdict.id: 12706
Evidence Code section 1150, subdivision (a) which excludes evidence of the jurors' subjective reasoning process to impeach their verdict has not been abrogated by the Truth-in-Evidence provision of Proposition 8.Defendant's motion for new trial was supported by the declarations of three jurors who stated that they heard in deliberations that defendant would only face six months in jail if convicted of conspiracy. He argued on appeal that Evidence Code section 1150, subdivision (a), prohibiting the admissibility of evidence of a juror's subjective reasoning process, has been abrogated by article 1, section 28, subdivision (d) of the California Constitution. However, under both the common law and Evidence Code section 1150, the jurors' motives, beliefs, misunderstandings and intentions remain immaterial. Moreover, any misconduct in disregarding the court's instruction not to discuss penalty was harmless where the allusions to the improper matter were isolated and infrequent.id: 12657
Excusing juror mid-trial was proper where the juror stated she had seen defendant in her church the previous week.The trial court properly excused a juror mid-trial where, at a conference during the presentation of the prosecution's case-in-chief, attending church the previous weekend, she recognized defendant during a visitor welcoming ceremony at which he asked to become a member of her church. The record established a demonstrable reality that the juror was unable to perform her duty within the meaning of Penal Code section 1089 because she could not assure the court she would decide the case by reference exclusively to the law and the evidence.id: 12659
Foreperson did not commit prejudicial misconduct in presenting jurors with a computerized spread sheet mapping out all of the counts.The jury foreperson wrote a letter to the judge stating that he had provided jurors during deliberations with a spread sheet derived from a computer program. The letter did not constitute otherwise admissible evidence of jury misconduct for purposes of a new trial motion. Even if the letter was otherwise admissible as evidence of jury misconduct, the alleged conduct was not prejudicial to defendant.id: 12663
Improper comments by jurors during deliberations regarding defendant's not testifying and possible sentence were not prejudicial.Defendant filed a motion for a new trial based on jury misconduct. During deliberations comments were made about defendant's not testifying and regarding a possible sentence. Defendant was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine the truth of the allegations because the truth of the material allegations were not in question. The comments clearly constituted misconduct. However, the misconduct was not prejudicial. The comments did not involve extra record material but were regarding matters obvious to the jurors. More importantly, the foreperson admonished the jurors they could not consider defendant's not testifying during deliberations. Finally, the fact that only some of the jurors remembered the discussion tended to indicate the discussion was not of any length or significance.id: 12666
Juror discussion regarding the possibility of prison escape was not prejudicial misconduct.After the penalty verdict was returned, defendant moved for a mew trial on grounds the jury committed misconduct juring deliberations. One of the jurors was a cook at Vacaville Prison and volunteered that prisoners sentenced to death are watched 23 hours a day and given an hour of exercise, while life prisoners have a far greater opportunity to escape. The new trial motion was properly denied as any discussions regarding prison escape were based on common sense and general knowledge, and the offending juror never professed to be an expert on the subject of prison escapes.id: 12672
Juror was properly discharged after sleeping during trial and exclusion of defendant from the hearing on the issue was not prejudicial.Defendant argued the court erred in discharging a juror after trial had commenced and that he was wrongfully excluded from the in camera hearing to determine whether the juror should be excused. The juror was properly discharged as the court determined he was sleeping during trial and his responses to the jury questionnaire were untruthful. Moveover, while defendant may have had a statutory right to attend the hearing, his exclusion therefrom was not prejudicial error because it was unlikely his presence would have enhanced his opportunity to defend against the charges. Finally, defense counsel's tactical decision not to attend the hearing did not deprive defendant of the right to counsel at a critical stage of the proceedings.id: 12673
Juror's improper contact with defendant's uncle did not prejudice the defendants.During the trial of four defendants for the attempted murder of a police officer, a female juror had improper contact with a man who was related to two of the defendants. During deliberations the juror expressed views sympathetic to the defendants. However, although the juror was improperly influenced, any harm was suffered by the prosecution and not defendants. The new trial motions were properly denied.id: 12675
Juror's questioning a witness was not prejudicial where the witness did not respond to the questions and the juror stated she did not sympathize with the witness or prejudge the case.During the noon recess while the police informant was testifying a juror approached the witness and asked her questions regarding the case. The witness stated that she could not discuss the case. This amounted to juror misconduct. However, the misconduct was not prejudicial where the juror stated at a hearing on the issue that she denied having sympathy for the witness and repeatedly stated she had not prejudged the case or made up her mind on guilt.id: 12679
Juror's written questions prior to deliberations did not constitute misconduct.During the penalty phase, the jurors posed written questions to the court regarding the defendant's whereabouts when his son was born, his marital status, and feelings about his son. Defendant argued the premature deliberation amounted to juror misconduct. However, the questions tendered did not indicate the jurors had commenced their deliberations or had formed any tentative conclusions regarding the appropriate penalty.id: 12682
Any harm in jurors overhearing witness' discussion in the hallway was cured where the court admonished the jurors to disregard anything they overheard.Defendant complained that two police officers were discussing material contained in their police reports in the hallway where jurors could overhear them. Defendant argued the court erred in failing to conduct a hearing to determine what the jurors may have overheard in the hallway. However, if a legal violation occurred when jurors overheard extraneous statements, any harm was cured after the court immediately admonished the jurors not to consider anything they may have heard in the hallway.id: 12626
Claim that a juror drew a map clarifying a witness map regarding a minor point did not constitute prejudicial misconduct.Defendant complained of juror misconduct arguing that the court erred in denying the new trial motion based on the affidavit of a single juror who claimed another juror drew a map clarifying a confusing map drawn by a witness. Even if the juror's action constituted misconduct there was no substantial likelihood the vote of another juror was influenced by exposure to the improper material. The correction of the confusing map related to a minor point which happened to be favorable to the defendant.id: 12628
Court did not abuse its discretion in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing based on the speculative possibility of juror misconduct.During voir dire, a prospective juror disclosed that his brother-in-law was a deputy district attorney and that his wife was a former deputy district attorney. He did not divulge that his wife had accepted, or was about to accept a position with the District Attorney's office again. He was never asked about his wife's future employment. Defendant argued the failure to disclose this information was an attempt to conceal a potential conflict of interest. However, since the assertion raised no more than a speculative possibility of misconduct, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing.id: 12630
Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the presentation of a witness on the issue of juror misconduct where defendant did not demonstrate a strong possibility of prejudicial misconduct.Prior to sentencing defendant sought to call a juror to the stand to question her regarding a possible instance of juror misconduct. As an offer of proof defense counsel told the court he received information that the juror he sought to question had done some research on a medical issue relating to some of the testimony. However, the offer of proof did not reveal what information she received or whether she communicated this information to the other jurors. The defense did not present evidence demonstrating a strong possibility that prejudicial misconduct had occurred.id: 12631
Court did not err in denying the motion to discharge a juror who made a comment to the bailiff in jest regarding potential retaliation after a guilty verdictDuring trial a juror asked the bailiff "Do you think we are in any danger of getting shot if the jury should decide the defendant was guilty?" Defendant moved to discharge the juror claiming she was apprehensive about retaliation and improperly discussed the case with her husband. However, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion where the court determined the comment to the juror was made in jest and that repeating the comment to her husband did not violate the admonition because the statement was a general comment having nothing to do with the facts of the case.id: 12633
Court did not err in excusing for cause a juror who contacted the defense expert witness inquiring into the elements of various forms of arson.Despite the court's admonishment not to consult outside sources, a juror went to the courthouse law library to do research on the topic of arson, as well as the concepts of malice and financial gain. He assured the court, however, that he would follow all instructions. The court later discovered the same juror contacted the defense expert witness inquiring as to the elements of various forms of arson. Defendant argued he was prejudiced by the trial court's determination to excuse the juror for cause. While a reasonable judge might have permitted the juror to remain empaneled, it was equally reasonable for the judge to conclude justice would be better served with a replacement.id: 12635
Court did not err in failing to inquire sua sponte into the state of mind of a juror where it was unclear whether the derogatory comment was directed at defense counsel.The jury had been excused for a discussion of the scope of cross-examination of a defense witness. When the jury returned, the defense rested and an unidentified juror said Oh, you son-of-a-. Defendant argued that once the court was put on notice that a juror might be biased against counsel, it had a sua sponte duty to inquire into the state of mind of the juror making the remark. However, the juror's derogatory remark did not appear to be the result of improper or external inferences, but rather his or her momentary exasperation with the proceeding.id: 12637
Court did not err in failing to inquire as to possible juror misconduct after a note regarding the governor's power of commutation.During penalty phase deliberations the jury foreman sent a note asking whether the governor had the power of commutation. The trial court was not put on notice that good cause to discharge the foreman existed and the court had no duty to conduct an inquiry. Moreover, the court did not err in instructing the jury regarding commutation where it had reason to believe the jury was speculating about the future reduction of sentence and the court advised the jury not to speculate on that issue.id: 12638
Court did not err in refusing to excuse a juror who had overheard a news report regarding defendant's threats to jail guards.During penalty phase a juror informed the court he had inadvertently overheard a television news report that defendant had made threats against jail guards. The court held a hearing outside the presence of other jurors at which the juror stated he would not tell the others of the report and would disregard it in performing his duties. He stated he could still be fair and impartial. The trial court which had the benefit of observing the juror's demeanor stated it believed him. The record rebutted the presumption of prejudice and there was no substantial likelihood the incident prejudiced defendant.id: 12639
Court did not err in refusing to conduct an evidentiary hearing as to juror misconduct based on the unsworn statement of a juror to a defense investigator.Following the death verdict, defendant moved for a new penalty trial based on an unsworn statement by a juror to a defense investigator that the jury considered matters not in evidence. The trial court denied defendant's request for an in-court examination of the juror. The court did not err in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing on the alleged juror misconduct absent affidavits or evidence substantiating the claims of the juror to the defense investigator.id: 12640
Court did not prejudicially err in failing to declare a mistrial or excuse a penalty phase juror who brought a Bible into deliberations and read several verses to the jury.A juror brought a Bible into penalty phase deliberations and read several verses to the jury. Upon learning of this, the court questioned each of the jurors. They said the Bible verses were read after completion of the deliberations for the day and that they did not discuss the Bible verses. The court then admonished the jurors to decide the case solely on the evidence and the court's instructions on the law. Under the circumstances, there was no substantial likelihood that the incident prejudiced defendant.id: 12642
Court was not required to replace a juror who gave a fruit cocktail to an attractive detective who was a prosecution witness.During testimony, one of the jurors gave a gift of fruit cocktail to a detective who was one of the investigating officers and a prosecution witness. The trial court denied defendant's motion to replace the juror with an alternate based on juror misconduct. The court stated that it believed the juror was motivated by the detective's attractiveness and not by an intent to show favoritism to the prosecution. The court was not required to conduct an inquiry and question the juror based on the speculation that the juror expressed a pro-prosecution bias.id: 12649
There was no prejudicial misconduct by jurors in reading newspaper articles regarding jury selection process including quotes from the instant trial judge.Shortly after the jury was sworn, three Los Angeles Times articles were published referring to cases and jury selections. The articles quoted the trial judge who commented on reform of the jury selection process. The articles were read by 10 of 12 jurors and all six alternate jurors. There was no prejudicial juror misconduct in reading the articles where none contained accounts of defendant's trial. Moreover, because there was no evidence that the trial judge spoke to the reporters about defendant's case there was no prejudicial judicial misconduct.id: 12183
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Exclusion of 18-25 year-olds from the youthful offender provisions of section 3051 did not violate equal protection. Penal Code section 3051 establishes a parole eligibility hearing for juveniles convicted of special circumstance murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Excluding persons 18-25 from the youthful offender parole hearing provision did not violate equal protection principles.id: 27245