Opinion ID: 844238
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Investigation of Asserted Juror Misconduct

Text: (2) Whether and how to investigate an allegation of juror misconduct falls within the court's discretion. ( Alexander, supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 927.) Although a court should exercise caution to avoid threatening the sanctity of jury deliberations, it must hold a hearing when it learns of allegations which, if true, would constitute good cause for a juror's discharge. ( People v. Lomax (2010) 49 Cal.4th 530, 588 [112 Cal.Rptr.3d 96, 234 P.3d 377] ( Lomax ).) Failure to do so may be an abuse of discretion. ( Ibid. ) Defendants first contend the court erred by interviewing all of the jurors because the foreperson's report did not suggest any juror was engaging in misconduct. Because Juror No. 11 was participating in deliberations, defendants argue, no further inquiry was needed. That argument fails. Defendants rely on People v. Cleveland (2001) 25 Cal.4th 466 [106 Cal.Rptr.2d 313, 21 P.3d 1225] ( Cleveland ), in which the trial court abused its discretion by excusing a juror for a purported refusal to deliberate. There was no refusal to deliberate here. Instead, some jurors alleged Juror No. 11 had already decided on his verdict before deliberations began, and was defending this preconception during deliberations. (3) The court was told that Juror No. 11 had said during deliberations: When the prosecution rested, she didn't have a case. Such a statement might suggest that the juror had made up his mind before all evidence was presented and the court had instructed on the law. For a juror to decide a case before it is submitted is misconduct. Accordingly, the court's further inquiry was reasonable. (See People v. Barnwell (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1038, 1054 [63 Cal.Rptr.3d 82, 162 P.3d 596] ( Barnwell ) [juror note about possible juror misconduct due to bias against police officer testimony required the court to conduct a hearing].) The foreperson indicated Juror No. 4 shared his concerns, and her views may have shed a different light on the statements at issue. The court did not abuse its discretion by interviewing Juror No. 4 or the remaining jurors to ascertain whether they could provide additional information about the assertion. (See id. at pp. 1048-1051 [trial court took testimony from all 12 jurors during inquiry into possible juror misconduct].) Defendants next contend the court's questioning was not restrained and neutral but aggressive and leading. As a result, the court may have coerced jurors into stating Juror No. 11 had committed misconduct. This record reveals no abuse of discretion in the manner of inquiry. While, of course, the court's tone of voice is not revealed, the content of its questions appears measured. Neither defendant objected to the court's tone of voice or attempted to make a further record on this point. Defendants also focus on the court's questioning of Juror No. 4 when the court asked why she believed Juror No. 11 had prejudged the case. She responded, Because whatever piece of evidence we addressed he would make very strong pronouncements about how he felt about it, and always these pronouncements were to support hishis opinion, and they often really had no logic to them at all. The court responded by saying it did not want to know specifically all the reasoning, and so forth, that's going on in the jury room at all; I'm really not interested in that. But maybe if you could give me an example of what you are talking about, or maybe you could say it in a different way for me. Juror No. 4 then mentioned the timecard remark. Her response indicated the possibility of a separate instance of misconduct: relying on facts outside the record. The court properly inquired further because it had previously admonished the jury to not speculate or consider matters beyond the record. [8] The court's questions to the remaining jurors were within the legitimate exercise of its discretion.