Opinion ID: 2084428
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Prosecutorial Claim Time Barred

Text: Bialach raises a claim of prosecutorial misconduct for the first time in this collateral proceeding. [11] This claim relies principally on his contention that the prosecutor misrepresented to the trial judge what he knew about the alleged sleeping juror. The United States Supreme Court has stated: There is little doubt that postverdict investigation into juror misconduct would in some instances lead to the invalidation of verdicts reached after irresponsible or improper juror behavior. It is not at all clear, however, that the jury system could survive such efforts to perfect it. Allegations of juror misconduct, incompetency, or inattentiveness, raised for the first time days, weeks, or months after the verdict, seriously disrupt the finality of the process. [12] The record reflects no evidence demonstrating that any of the prosecutor's conduct constituted a violation of Bialach's constitutional rights. [13] Consequently, with regard to Bialach's second contention, we hold that Bialach has again failed to overcome the procedural bars of Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.