Opinion ID: 1314558
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jury Deliberations and Verdict

Text: On June 27, 1990, the second day of deliberations, the trial judge engaged in a conversation with the jurors outside the presence of counsel. The judge promptly informed counsel of this communication and placed it on the record as follows: As the jurors were arriving, I told them not to worry if the fire alarm went off as they were working on the alarm system and would be testing it. The bailiff had missed the briefing and was unaware of the testing. One of the jurors asked if she could raise a general question not pertaining to the case. I told them I could not answer any question which might relate to the case without talking to the attorneys. She then asked the question of a person charged with rape who had previously been convicted of rape. I told her, and the others present, that the law basically said that was inadmissible as it would cause a jury to conclude a defendant who had done it before had done it again. This could result in a finding of guilt, just because of that and opined that would not be fair. Several jurors volunteered they agreed with this position. One of them asked if a previous conduct (I assumed he meant general deportment) was relevant. I answered that except in specific instances it was not relevant nor admissible. During the afternoon of that same day, in the third written inquiry received by the court from the jury since the ex parte conversation that morning, [5] the jury asked, If available, would the prosecution have been allowed to present evidence and/or testimony indicating that Mr. Delgado had a tendency toward violence (for example, similar to that presented concerning Manual Ortiz.) After consulting with counsel, the court returned a written response to the jury stating, You must decide all questions of fact in this case from the evidence received in this trial and not from any other source. You are not to speculate as to the existence or nonexistence of any fact not suggested by the evidence. During the afternoon of the next day, June 28, 1990, defendant moved for a mistrial on the ground that the information that I believe would have been taken or given to the jurors may well have indicated to them that there could have been evidence damaging to the defendant outside of the evidence, which was, for one reason or another, not admissible or relevant under the law. ¶ I think that, then, allows the jury to speculate that there may well be some fact out there that they were interested in that was not allowed to come into evidence because of some ruling by the court or principle of law. ¶ And I think that the danger is great that such an assumption on their part would have a negative influence on Mr. Delgado's ability to have a fair trial. ¶ They were obviously interested in that issue, in that they have sent a letter later in the afternoon asking almost an identical question that was asked earlier to the court. The motion was denied. The court noted that the jury had been repeatedly instructed not to speculate and that [t]he answer given in response to the written question was substantially the same as the answer that they secured out of me as they came in that morning. On the afternoon of June 29, 1990, the jury found defendant guilty of second degree murder and misdemeanor child abuse, and not guilty of assault.