Opinion ID: 2628721
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: There Was a Reasonable Possibility the Misconduct Affected the Verdict.

Text: Before granting a new trial, a court considering a post-conviction relief claim that the jury conducted an unauthorized experiment must conclude that there is a reasonable possibility the experiment affected the verdict. [22] I conclude that there is here. Olson's testimony was critical in linking Pease to both victims because it connected the four assailants that evening. The superior court explained that [m]ore than sixty witnesses testified and Arlo Olson was the only one who identified the defendants as Dayton's assailants and one of only a few who placed the four together on the night of the crimes. The superior court also found that [i]n closing argument, all counsel discussed the testimony of [Olson and Dr. Loftus] and attempted to bolster or denigrate its value. The court cannot find that an experiment that attempted to resolve the validity of this difference [between Olson's and Dr. Loftus's testimony] was not likely to have influenced the verdict. The judge who presided over the criminal trial and heard firsthand the extensive and contradictory witness testimony and the other trial evidence was in the best position to assess the likely effect of the experiment on the jury's deliberations. In assessing the potential effect of the experiment on the verdict, the superior court found that resort to an unapproved demonstration was likely to have influenced the jurors' deliberations. It also stated that it could not find that the experiment was not likely to have influenced the verdict. We should defer to those rulings. Because there is no good reason to reject the superior court's assessment, we should accept it as valid. The superior court did not apply the reasonable possibility standard in assessing the legal significance of its findings. [23] But the court's statements plainly indicate that the applicable standard is satisfied. An experiment that is likely to have influenced the deliberations likewise necessarily has a reasonable possibility of having affected the verdict. There might be some dispute about exactly what particular jurors wished to test, but there is no genuine dispute about what the jurors did and that their goal was to assess the critical identification evidence in some way. There might also be a genuine dispute about the experiment's actual effect on the outcome, but this question is immaterial given the superior court's finding about the experiment's likely effect. [24]