Opinion ID: 2607459
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Alleged Jury Misconduct Discussions About Escape

Text: After the penalty verdict was returned, defendant moved for a new trial on grounds the jury committed misconduct during deliberations. Attached to the motion was a declaration by Juror Perez saying the jury discussed a recent violent escape from Vacaville Prison. According to a typewritten portion of the declaration, Juror McCarrel  who all jurors apparently knew was a cook at Vacaville Prison  volunteered that prisoners sentenced to death are watched 23 hours a day and allowed to exercise only 1 hour a day, whereas life prisoners are housed in a mainline setting and have a far greater opportunity to escape. In a handwritten portion of the declaration, Perez opined that the escape issue did not affect the verdict. At defendant's request, the court struck the handwritten portion of the declaration because it concerned the jury's subjective deliberative process in violation of Evidence Code section 1150. [28] The court then denied a new trial on grounds no misconduct occurred. It reasoned that any discussions about escape were based on common sense and general knowledge, and that McCarrel was not professing to be an expert on the subject of prison escapes and was [not] somehow bringing in outside law or making experiments.... (46) We agree with the court's reasoning and result. Defendant incorrectly suggests misconduct occurs whenever the jury, though instructed to consider only the evidence before it, nonetheless discusses speculative, irrelevant, and/or erroneous facts or opinions. Indeed, lay jurors are expected to bring their individual backgrounds and experiences to bear on the deliberative process. That they do so is one of the strengths of the jury system. It is also one of its weaknesses.... Such a weakness, however, must be tolerated. ( People v. Marshall (1990) 50 Cal.3d 907, 950 [269 Cal. Rptr. 269, 790 P.2d 676]; see People v. Fauber (1992) 2 Cal.4th 792, 838-839 [9 Cal. Rptr.2d 24, 831 P.2d 249].) Otherwise, few verdicts would stand. These principles were not offended here. The average juror undoubtedly worries that a dangerous inmate might escape. While McCarrel's statements elaborating on this theme were purportedly based on his experience inside the prison system, he only said what any citizen might assume was true  that inmates sentenced to death are subjected to the tightest form of security and that they have fewer opportunities to escape than other inmates. No misconduct or presumption of prejudice appears.