Opinion ID: 1237936
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jury Inquiry During Deliberations

Text: During the penalty deliberations, the jury foreperson sent the court a note requesting, among other items, Writings &/or testimony re. `Take her to the country' or `Took girl to the country.' After discussing the matter with counsel, the court had the court reporter read to the jury portions of the guilt phase testimony of Clifford Smith and Michael Thompson and part of defendant's penalty phase testimony. In the portion of his testimony read to the jury, Smith had said that to take someone to the country meant to kill that person. He explained that the phrase had originally referred to a particular killing of a woman by a former AB member but had since become AB slang for any killing. Michael Thompson, in the testimony read to the jury, said he understood sent a girl to the country to mean that the girl in question has been killed and dumped. Asked whether he had ever seen that phrase written, he said that he had. He then testified that he had received letters or cards from defendant after defendant was released from prison but before his arrest, and that he had seen letters or notes that defendant had written during the same time period to other AB members, including Bob Curl, John Stinson, Clifford Smith, Robert Griffen, and Bobby Schmidt. He was not asked, however, whether the phrase sent a girl to the country appeared in any of the letters or cards written by defendant that he had seen. In the testimony of defendant that was read to the jury, defendant was asked what the phrase took her to the country meant to him and whether he had ever used that phrase in reference to Elizabeth Hickey in a letter or card written to a state prison inmate. Defendant appeared to have difficulty understanding the question, asking repeatedly for clarification. Finally, he testified that the only time he ever wrote about Hickey was in a letter to Michael Thompson in which he discussed the case solely in terms of what the prosecution was alleging. He did not say whether he had used the phrase took her to the country in this letter. Later the same day, after the court reporter had read this testimony to the jury, the foreperson sent two more notes. The first requested any/all postcards in evidence. The second stated that the jury wanted to see the writing, postcard or whatever evidence it was that led to the prosecution's questions about the phrase `took a girl to the country.' Out of the jury's presence, the court said: It's my recollection that that postcard was not retained by Mr. Thompson or anyone that either side is aware of; is that correct? Defense counsel replied: According to the discovery provided in the logs of Agent Tulleners ... Frank Wirshup told Agent Tulleners he put it in a baby lotion bottle that was in his cell at the time his cell was fire bombed and destroyed.... The court then gave this answer to the jury: [T]o advise you about your last note which speaks of a postcard which gave rise to the prosecution's questions about the phrase `Take a girl to the country,' everyone here agrees that postcard was never physically present nor marked in this case. We could all speculate, I think, individually and perhaps collectively as to what may have happened to it, but no one here really knows. It's never been before the Court as far as I know and certainly is not marked and is not in evidence. At the bench, defense counsel expressed concern that this admonition suggested that there was a postcard in existence, although it had not been produced. The court addressed the jury again: Ladies and gentlemen, I don't recall the exact wording that I gave you about the postcard. Whatever I said is not meant to infer that necessarily there was ever such a postcard in existence. All I'm trying to convey to you clearly is that there is certainly not one marked. There is not one in evidence, and it may be or it may not be, and no one here really knows because we  we haven't seen it, and I don't want you to be inferring that there was necessarily one in existence at any given time. That's something that you should treat along with the other evidence and make your determination on if there is enough evidence for to make a determination on that issue, if it's important to you. [¶] We do not have one marked. We do not have one in evidence. And anything I am saying here is not to infer or cause you to believe that I have some inside information that one did indeed exist at any given time. I don't know that. (101) Defendant contends that the jury's notes indicate a mistaken belief that evidence had been presented at the guilt phase that defendant had used the phrase take a girl to the country in connection with the Hickey killing, and had thereby confessed to the killing. He maintains that this evidence of mistaken understanding requires reversal of all the guilt verdicts. He further contends that the trial court's response to the jury's notes exacerbated the problem by suggesting there was evidence from which the jury might infer that defendant had made such a damning admission. Requesting reversal of the penalty verdict as well, defendant invokes his rights under the federal Constitution to a fair jury trial, due process of law, and a reliable penalty determination. Defendant cites no authority for the proposition that a jury's inquiries at the penalty phase may be used to attack the verdict it rendered at the guilt phase. Assuming for argument's sake that such an attack could be successful in a proper case, we conclude that it cannot succeed here. The jury's penalty phase inquiries do not show that evidence concerning the phrase take a girl to the country had played any role in the guilt verdicts. On the contrary, the inquiries reflect interest in a topic that had assumed significance only at the penalty phase. Moreover, the inquiries do not reveal a mistaken understanding of the guilt phase evidence. The jury asked for the writing, postcard or whatever evidence it was that led to the prosecution's questions; it did not ask for or refer to any writing mentioned in the testimony of Smith or Thompson. Nor do we find any error in the admonition the court gave. The court properly stressed that there was no exhibit in evidence corresponding to the jury's inquiry and that such a writing might never have existed. The court did not err in suggesting that the jury might infer the existence of a writing that prompted the prosecutor's questions. Thompson testified that he received letters from defendant and that he had seen the phrase sent a girl to the country in a letter, but he did not testify that he seen the phrase in a letter from defendant. When asked about this, defendant replied evasively, admitting finally that he had written to Thompson about the Hickey killing, although in the context of the prosecution's allegations. He did not affirm or deny that he used the phrase took a girl to the country in reference to the charges against him. From all this testimony, the jury could properly infer, at the least, that some writing had once existed that had prompted the prosecutor's questions.