Opinion ID: 2607459
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Ex Parte Communication With Juror Dean

Text: After evening recess was declared on the sixth day of penalty deliberations, the court discussed an employment issue with Juror Dean outside the presence of the other jurors. The conversation was reported and apparently was not attended by the prosecutor, defense counsel, or defendant. Juror Dean stated that his employer had questioned whether a particular day's absence from work was attributable to jury service. The court offered to call or write the employer to explain the full-time nature of Dean's obligation. The court showed Dean a copy of a letter it had drafted stressing the complex nature of the proceedings, the importance of Dean's continued participation, and the faithfulness of his service to date. Dean accepted the court's offer to telephone the employer. Dean also indicated he would physically present the letter to his employer the next day if it seemed necessary to do so. (43) Defendant now contends the foregoing conversation violated his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Defendant concedes the court's efforts to relieve [any] pressure [on Juror Dean] were not inappropriate, but suggests that counsel might have handled the situation differently by seeking to excuse Dean, explore his emotional state, or reword the court's letter. Even assuming some sort of technical error occurred, defendant was not prejudiced under any applicable standard. (See People v. Wright (1990) 52 Cal.3d 367, 400-403 [276 Cal. Rptr. 731, 802 P.2d 221].) The challenged conversation was administrative in nature and had no bearing on issues raised at trial. Indeed, the court cautioned Dean at one point not to talk about anything in the juryroom, and defendant does not claim any improper disclosures were made. Defendant's arguments concerning what might have transpired if counsel had been present are tangential and speculative. Any suggestion that Dean might have been unfit to serve on the jury as a result of employment pressure was belied by his assurance to the court that nothing is bothering me. No basis for reversal appears.