Opinion ID: 1351145
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 32

Heading: Failure to examine and admonish the jury

Text: During the testimony about the killing of Aguilar the court was informed by a juror that alternate Juror Thomas  who was pregnant  was not feeling well, and was upset about the effect of the testimony on her pregnancy. Thomas then approached the court and stated she felt she could not continue, having become very upset about the testimony of the murder of Aguilar, who, as noted above, was also pregnant. The court suggested Thomas be excused, and defense counsel stated he had no objection to doing so. The court then explained to the jury that Thomas was excused for medical reasons. (79) Defendant now suggests the court should have examined sua sponte the remaining jurors to determine if they had been improperly influenced by Thomas, and also should have admonished the jury against considering Thomas's experience in determining the proper penalty. Even assuming such a sua sponte duty, in the absence of any evidence of misconduct by Thomas or any other member of the jury we conclude there is no reasonable possibility the jury's deliberations were improperly affected.