Opinion ID: 1218866
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jurors Overhearing Comments Regarding Case

Text: Brown claims he was deprived of his Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights because the state trial court failed to declare a mistrial after four jurors overheard comments regarding the case. It appears that during the guilt phase of the trial, four jurors went to lunch together at a local fast food restaurant. After they sat down, another group sat down near them, which may have included some members of Brown's family and/or friends. This second group was talking very loudly and made comments about the case the jurors could overhear. The four jurors finished their lunch as quickly as possible and did not discuss the case amongst themselves. They returned to the courtroom and informed the judge what had happened. The judge communicated ex parte with the four jurors, and there is no transcript of what occurred. He did, however, have the jurors make little reports about what happened, which were handwritten notes stapled to the minute order for February 1, 1982. These notes tell the same basic storythe group went to eat, the second group sat down and was talking noisily about the case, so the jurors decided to ignore them and finish lunch as quickly as possible. Only one note appears to describe the subject matter the other group was discussingwere witnesses expert or not, did kids [sic] testimony count, etc. Following the incident, the court admonished the entire jury on the record: [I]t has come to my attention that from time to time you might be placed in a position where there is somebody in the vicinity talking about the case and you can correctly ignore it and, of course, if you can, to avoid hearing anything that you can and if you can, simply do your best to ignore it and try to treat it as though you never heard anything. Put it out of your mind. Stay with just what is received here in court. After the jury was dismissed for the day, the court informed trial counsel what had occurred and made the notes available for them to review: There are some statements here from some of the jurors and I think probably the best thing to do is make them available for counsel at their convenience. Some of the jurors heard some others talking regarding the case and they ignored it and I have [sic] them make a little report and so I will make that available for counsel at your convenience. . . . The record does not indicate that either counsel asked to examine the jurors in more detail. Brown now argues that the trial court erred by failing to declare a mistrial sua sponte. Although a more developed record would certainly make appellate review easier, the evidence that was submitted about the incident in the form of the little reports suggests that the encounter was relatively brief and that the jurors did their best to ignore the comments and minimize their exposure. The California Supreme Court was not objectively unreasonable in denying Brown's claim on the merits, because Brown has not demonstrated that the alleged error had a substantial and injurious effect on the verdict. Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 623, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993). The jurors promptly reported the incident to the trial judge and did not discuss any comments they may have overheard among themselves. The trial court properly instructed the jury to disregard any extraneous comments and to decide the case based only on the evidence at trial; juries are presumed to follow the court's instructions. Weeks v. Angelone, 528 U.S. 225, 234, 120 S.Ct. 727, 145 L.Ed.2d 727 (2000). Furthermore, considering the eye-witness testimony and the extensive evidence found at Brown's home and work locker linking him to the crime, the guilt phase evidence against Brown was overwhelming. Because the district court's assessment of this constitutional claim was neither wrong nor debatable, we deny the COA on this claim.