Opinion ID: 3050957
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Introduction of Extraneous Information Into

Text: Sentencing Discussions The Sixth Amendment guarantee of a trial by jury requires the jury verdict to be based on the evidence produced at trial. Jeffries, 114 F.3d at 1490 (citing Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466, 472-73 (1965)). “A juror’s communication of extrinsic facts implicates the Confrontation Clause.” Sassounian, 230 F.3d at 1108 (citing Jeffries, 114 F.3d at 1490). “The juror in effect becomes an unsworn witness, not subject to confrontation or cross examination.” Id. (citing Jeffries, 114 F.3d at 1490). That the unsworn testimony comes from a juror does not diminish the scope of a defendant’s rights under the Sixth Amendment. Jeffries, 114 F.3d at 1490 (citing Lawson v. Borg, 60 F.3d 608, 612 (9th Cir. 1995)). Juror misconduct is subject to “harmless error” analysis. Sassounian, 230 F.3d at 1108. We look to the following factors to determine whether a defendant has suffered prejudice from juror misconduct: (1) whether the material was actually received, and if so, how; (2) the length of time it was available to the jury; (3) the extent to which the juror discussed and considered it; 1054 ESTRADA v. SCRIBNER (4) whether the material was introduced before a verdict was reached, and if so at what point in the deliberations; and (5) any other matters which may bear on the issue of the reasonable possibility of whether the extrinsic material affected the verdict. Id. at 1109. [7] The state appellate court held that the jurors’ discussion of sentencing, as well as the discussion of an unrelated murder within that context, was improper jury misconduct. Still, the state appellate court found that there was no “substantial likelihood” that the improper discussion of sentencing influenced the jury. Foremost in its analysis was its finding that these facts occurred in this sequence: 1) a vote of 11 jurors for second-degree murder and one for manslaughter; 2) a vote of 10 jurors for first degree murder, and two for second degree murder; 3) the discussion of the extraneous information regarding the need for a longer sentence; and 4) the jury’s ultimate verdict of second-degree murder. As the jury ultimately found the lesser charge of second degree murder, the state appellate court reasoned that the extraneous information did not result in a longer sentence for defendant (as indeed, the jury found Estrada guilty on a lesser charge after the improper discussions). [8] The state appellate court therefore found that the improper sentencing discussion happened after — rather than before — the change of votes to first degree murder simply because in Juror No. 1’s declaration describing the events of Monday, August 7th, his statement that “there were discussions” about sentencing occurs in the next sentence after his statement that jurors changed their votes. An equally plausible scenario is that Juror No. 1’s statement about the sentencing discussions was simply intended to provide the reasons for the change, rather than the relation of a temporally distinct event. ESTRADA v. SCRIBNER 1055 Under this scenario, one could reasonably infer that 1) the jury engaged in improper sentencing discussions about the need for a longer sentence, 2) the majority of jurors subsequently changed their votes from second-degree to firstdegree murder, and then, 3) the majority compromised with the holdouts by voting for second degree murder (despite the fact that the holdouts felt that intent was not present). Were those facts to be true, there may well be a “substantial likelihood” that the improper discussions influenced the jury. [9] State appellate court findings, however, are normally entitled to a presumption of correctness. See Dyer, 151 F.3d at 979 n.11. It cannot be said that the state court’s finding of the timing of these events was an “unreasonable” determination of the facts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). [10] Even if Estrada’s version of events were true, Estrada’s claim would fail because the state appellate court rested its decision to deny Estrada’s petition on alternate grounds — most prominently, that the jury voted for second degree murder shortly after a colloquy between the trial judge and jury in which the judge charged that if the robbery followed the murder, Estrada would not properly be subject to first-degree murder liability under a felony-murder theory.12 The timing of this colloquy, and the short amount of time between the colloquy and the verdict, supports the argument that the jury reached its verdict for reasons unrelated to the improper sentencing discussions. Cf. Sassounian, 230 F.3d at 1110-12 (calling “critical” the fact that the jury discussed improper evidence shortly before rendering a verdict). Even if Estrada was granted an evidentiary hearing, and if the additional evidence showed that the improper discussion preceded the vote for first degree murder, the state court’s determination that the improper discussion did not prejudice the jury was not “con12 Additionally, as the district court noted, there was no indication that the improper discussion of sentencing was lengthy, and some jurors pointed out that the discussion was improper and objected. 1056 ESTRADA v. SCRIBNER trary to” or an “unreasonable application of” Supreme Court precedent in light of the other evidence rebutting a presumption of prejudice. It follows that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to hold an evidentiary hearing. “[I]f the record refutes the applicant’s factual allegations or otherwise precludes habeas relief, a district court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing.” Schriro v. Landrigan, 127 S. Ct. at 1940; see also United States v. Langford, 802 F.2d 1176, 1180 (9th Cir. 1986).