Opinion ID: 1172635
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Excuse Juror Savolt for Inattentiveness

Text: (37) Prior to the beginning of penalty phase testimony, defendant moved for removal of Juror Savolt, who served as jury foreman during both the guilt and penalty phases, on the ground Savolt committed misconduct during the guilt phase. Defense counsel, based on alleged observations of Savolt's body language, contended Savolt had reached a decision in the case before the matter was submitted to him. Specifically, counsel alleged Savolt turned away from watching defense witnesses, and was not paying any attention to defense witnesses. Instead, Savolt was facing away, not looking at ... defense witnesses that were testifying. In response to defendant's motion, the trial court stated that during the course of the trial I make it a habit to observe the jury and I don't recall seeing anything that would make me feel that he was not listening to the evidence. When defense counsel requested that Savolt be asked if he had listened to the defense, the court denied the request, finding no objective evidence that he did such a thing ... other than what you [i.e., defense counsel] say [about] his body language. Ultimately, the court denied defendant's motion to excuse Juror Savolt. Defendant contends it was reversible error for the trial court not to voir dire Juror Savolt as to whether he had listened to the defense. It is true that [a] trial court must conduct a sufficient inquiry to determine facts alleged as juror misconduct `whenever the court is put on notice that good cause to discharge a juror may exist.' ( People v. Davis (1995) 10 Cal.4th 463, 547 [41 Cal. Rptr.2d 826, 896 P.2d 119], quoting People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505, 519 [224 Cal. Rptr. 112, 714 P.2d 1251].) On this record, however, we cannot conclude the trial court was put on notice of good cause to discharge Savolt. First, defense counsel made inconsistent factual allegations in support of his request that the court voir dire Juror Savolt, thus undermining his claim of misconduct. In the same breath, trial defense counsel alleged both that Juror Savolt was showing his disgust, his disbelief in any defense witnesses and that he [p]aid absolutely no attention to what the defense was presenting. Second, the trial court was attentive to the possibility of Savolt's misbehavior. Twice confronted by defense counsel with concerns that Juror Savolt was not listening to defense witnesses, the trial judge stated, I've seen nothing improper, but I will observe much more closely. At the end of the court session at issue, as defendant acknowledges, the court further stated: I would like the record to reflect that I have constantly observed juror No. 7 [Savolt]. Through all these witnesses he has been attentive. Third, even if Juror Savolt did turn his face for some periods of time so that he was not directly observing defense witnesses, this fact would not alone establish that he was not listening to the witnesses or that he was not paying proper attention to their testimony. In short, defendant merely speculates there might have been jury misconduct. Before a juror may be dismissed for losing, during trial, the ability to render a fair and unbiased verdict, the juror's inability to perform his functions must appear as a `demonstrable reality.' ( People v. Van Houten (1980) 113 Cal. App.3d 280, 288 [170 Cal. Rptr. 189], quoting People v. Collins (1976) 17 Cal.3d 687, 696 [131 Cal. Rptr. 782, 552 P.2d 742].) The record here does not establish that the trial court was put on notice of good cause to believe that Juror Savolt had prejudged the issues submitted to him. Accordingly, no duty arose on the part of the trial court to conduct an inquiry, let alone to discharge Juror Savolt. ( People v. Davis, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 547.)