Opinion ID: 2720490
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Juror Meetings

Text: As previously mentioned, the court ruled that the potential threat of juror harm called for various security measures. These included juror anonymity, escort to and from a confidential location and sequestration in a special jury room during recesses. Early in the trial proceedings, over defense objection, the court conducted two in camera meetings with the jurors from which all parties were excluded. The court discussed the arrangements and asked if they were causing the jurors any problems. The parties were provided transcripts of the meetings after the trial concluded. Defendants assert on appeal that they ―plainly . . . had a right to be present at proceedings where the court spoke with the jurors who would decide appellant‘s fate.‖ To the contrary, ―a trial court properly may engage in ex parte communications [with jurors] for ‗ ―. . . administrative purposes . . . that do not deal with substantive matters.‖ ‘ ‖ (Clark, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 987.) The discussions at issue concerned the administrative matter of the jury‘s travels as well as other arrangements like the provision of lunch. Moreover, the court was reasonably concerned that the discussions remain confidential so security would not be compromised. As revealed by the transcripts, there was no discussion of any substantive matter related to the charges. In fact, the court cut off a juror who began to comment on the parties‘ use of exhibits. The court then had the juror express that concern in open court. The parties were provided a record of the proceedings after the trial, when the need for confidentiality had ended. Defendants‘ assertion that the ―cold record‖ does not ―reflect whether the court was successful in being neutral in tone and manner,‖ is not persuasive. That rationale would prohibit all ex parte communications between the court and the jury, contrary to law. Defendants have not established that the meetings were critical stages of the trial in the sense that the 155 absences could have frustrated the fairness of the trial or denied a full opportunity for defense.