Opinion ID: 2590211
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel in Failing to Request Removal of Juror Whose Brother-in-law Was a Friend of Victim Gambrel

Text: As discussed above, the body of Terry Lee Gambrel was found in defendant's car in the early morning hours of May 14, 1983, when the California Highway Patrol stopped defendant on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol. Gambrel had been expected the previous evening, but never arrived, at a house-warming party hosted by Marine Sergeant Ronald Phillips. Handwritten directions to Phillips's residence were found in Gambrel's wallet. The defense presented evidence that Gambrel smoked marijuana and used drugs; that he habitually carried a shoe box with him; and that the Marines were investigating him for drug use. In rebuttal, the prosecution presented the testimony of a Marine who was friendly with Gambrel and who had seen the contents of the shoe box: it contained sports gear, not drugs as the defense implied. Following the prosecution's presentation of rebuttal evidence, Defense Counsel McDonald informed the court that a Mrs. Drake was the sister of Juror Jim L. Mrs. Drake's husband was Donald Drake, whom the prosecution had interviewed as a friend of Gambrel's in the Marine Corps. Mr. and Mrs. Drake had been living with Sergeant Phillips at the time of Gambrel's death (hence, Gambrel was expected, but never appeared, at their residence the night he was murdered). In a telephone conversation conducted in chambers via speakerphone, with counsel present, Mrs. Drake stated her husband had offered to assist the prosecution in order to clear Gambrel's name of the accusations of drug abuse leveled by the defense. Mrs. Drake said she had only learned a month into the trial that her brother was a juror, and she and her husband had never spoken with her brother about the case, knowing to do so was prohibited. The trial court instructed Mrs. Drake that she and her husband were not to discuss the matter with anyone else and that no one in her family was to visit with Juror L. during deliberations. At defense counsel McDonald's request, the court told Mrs. Drake not to discuss the matter even with her husband. The trial court indicated it intended to discuss the matter with Juror L., but defense counsel McDonald said he did not wish L. questioned and would not seek his removal as a juror. Subsequently, Mc-Donald stated he was not interested in any further exploration of the issue, explaining in part: I have reviewed Mr. L[.]'s transcript on voir dire and I have looked on my notes and whatnot on him and I believe the questions that were asked were answered in an honest fashion. McDonald added that, if the court decided to question L., he preferred that counsel not be present, as he did not want L. to think either side wanted him removed. The court instead proposed to question L. with both counsel present and advise him that counsel for both sides wished to retain him on the jury. The following day, the trial court questioned L. in the presence of defendant and counsel. L. stated he had not discussed Donald Drake's relationship with Gambrel with the Drakes. L. did not believe his brother-in-law's relationship with Gambrel or his status as a potential witness would affect his decisionmaking in the case. Defense counsel did not seek to remove L. The prosecution did not call Drake as a witness. To secure reversal of a conviction for ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must establish that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that, to a reasonable probability, defendant would have obtained a more favorable result absent counsel's shortcomings. ( Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687-694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674.) If the record on appeal fails to show why counsel acted or failed to act in the instance asserted to be ineffective, unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, or unless there simply could be no satisfactory explanation, the claim must be rejected on appeal. ( People v. Mendoza Tello (1995) 15 Cal.4th 264, 266-268, 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 437, 933 P.2d 1134.) Here the recordБ─■reflecting that defense counsel reviewed his notes and L.'s voir direБ─■hints at the existence of some tactical reason for counsel's decision to retain L. At least, the record fails to eliminate that possibility. Accordingly, defendant's claim must fail for purposes of this appeal.