Opinion ID: 2810546
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Urine in the Stairwell

Text: During Welch‘s trial, bailiffs escorted jurors down a stairwell from the jury room on the seventh floor to the courtroom one floor below. Inmates, including Welch, were escorted through the same stairwell. Several jurors and the primary 13 bailiff, Deputy Dimsdale, recalled seeing or smelling urine in the stairwell during Welch‘s trial. The referee found that Deputy Dimsdale believed Welch had urinated in the stairwell and reported his concern to the judge, but not the jury. The trial record reveals that the judge asked Welch, outside the presence of the jury, to control his bladder problems because ―the bailiff‖ was concerned about him urinating in the stairwell. However, the referee found no credible evidence that Deputy Dimsdale communicated to jurors that Welch was the source of the urine. Deputy Dimsdale testified that he remembered frequently seeing urine in the stairwell during Welch‘s trial, that jurors mentioned the urine, but that he never brought urine to the jurors‘ attention. Several jurors remembered urine in the stairwell. Juror J.G., a witness the referee found mostly credible, remembered being warned to avoid stepping in urine in the stairwell but did not recall who had given the warning. Two other jurors, B.W. and J.C., remembered a bailiff commenting about the urine, but the referee found neither juror credible. B.W. remembered smelling urine in the stairwell and recalled the bailiff saying the urine must have come from an inmate. The referee gave B.W.‘s testimony ―very little weight‖ due to his ―clear bias,‖ noting that B.W. had testified that he had compassion for Welch and that his memory was affected by open-heart surgery. J.C. testified that someone, perhaps a bailiff, told jurors there was urine in the stairwell and recalled someone saying Welch was the source. J.C. could not remember who made either statement, but believed the purpose might have been to detract from Welch‘s competency. The referee found J.C.‘s testimony not credible, reasoning that no other juror corroborated his testimony and that J.C. was confused, equivocal, and easily led while testifying. Overall, the referee found no credible evidence that any bailiff had communicated to jurors that Welch had urinated in the stairwell. 14 Welch contends that ―[d]iscussions regarding urine in the stairwell clearly took place in the escorting bailiff‘s presence.‖ Even if true, however, such discussions did not necessarily constitute improper communication by the bailiff or misconduct by the jurors. Deputy Dimsdale acknowledged that jurors mentioned the urine but testified that he did not bring it to their attention, and the referee found his testimony credible. Nor does the fact that that Deputy Dimsdale believed Welch urinated in the stairwell and brought it to the judge‘s attention substantiate the claim that he also communicated this belief to jurors. ―[W]e generally defer to the referee‘s factual findings and ‗give great weight‘ to them when supported by substantial evidence.‖ (In re Bacigalupo (2012) 55 Cal.4th 312, 333.) Here we have no reason to question the referee‘s determination that Deputy Dimsdale did not engage in improper communications with jurors.