Opinion ID: 2625941
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Juror misconductbackground

Text: ¶ 10 Defendant argues that he must be granted a new trial because of prejudicial juror misconduct stemming from the bailiff's presentation of extrinsic evidence to the jury. ¶ 11 On September 13, 1999, the day the jury received the case, the trial court's bailiff quit her job. The next day, Defendant moved for a mistrial, claiming that the bailiff, in response to a question from a juror, had told the juror that Defendant was not in custody. The trial judge acknowledged that he had heard such a story but ruled that, even if such an exchange had occurred, it was not prejudicial. ¶ 12 After the verdict, Defendant filed a motion for a new trial, setting forth several issues, including possible juror misconduct. Three weeks later, Defendant filed a supplemental motion, supported by affidavits from two jurors, alleging that during the trial the bailiff had told jurors that Defendant had tattoos around his wrists that looked like bracelets, a fact not part of the evidence presented at trial, and that the jurors discussed this information during their deliberations. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing at which ten of the twelve jurors who found Defendant guilty testified. Two jurors who deliberated were not present at the hearing. ¶ 13 During the hearing, it was revealed that while the trial was in progress, the bailiff had told at least one juror, E.C., that Defendant had tattoos on his wrists. Another juror testified that the bailiff pointed to Defendant's wrist during the trial, indicating the presence of tattoos. Testimony revealed that five other jurors overheard the bailiff's conversation with E.C. regarding the tattoos. Of the remaining six jurors who were not present during the conversation with the bailiff, three admitted that they later learned of the evidence, and a fourth, G.C., who testified that he was not aware of the extrinsic evidence, was impeached by an investigator who testified that G.C. told him about the conversations concerning the tattoos. Further evidence revealed that some of the jurors spent time during deliberations methodically watching surveillance videos from the Quick Mart in New Mexico looking for tattoos on the individual who used Ted Lindberry's credit card. ¶ 14 In response to questions from the trial judge, the ten jurors testified that they did not see any tattoos on the person in the videos. At the evidentiary hearing, Defendant's counsel played one of the videos from the Quick Mart to show that a tattoo could be seen. For the record, the trial judge indicated that Defendant has barbed wire tattoos on each wrist. ¶ 15 In a detailed minute entry, the trial judge found that [u]ndisputed evidence established that the jury engaged in misconduct by receiving and considering extrinsic information that was not admitted at trial. He also observed that when the Quick Mart videos are carefully examined and stop framed ... a bracelet, watch or bracelet type tattoo can be seen on [Defendant's] left wrist. The court noted, however, that despite the visible wrist mark, all jurors who testified that they looked for tattoos said that [though] the topic of whether any tattoos could be seen on the subject was discussed amongst the jurors ..., nobody said they saw any tattoos. Therefore, despite the court's having seen what might have been a bracelet type tattoo, the trial judge denied Defendant's motion, finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the extrinsic and inadmissible evidence that [Defendant] had tattoos around his wrists did not contribute to the jury verdicts of guilty. [Defendant] has failed to show that he suffered actual prejudice by this improper and extrinsic information being presented to and considered by the jury.