Opinion ID: 2570148
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Conversation Between Juror C.B. and Mr. Paul

Text: Juror C.B.'s original declaration related the following conversation: During a break [in] the presentation of evidence I was in the hall outside of the courtroom when Mr. Paul, the deceased victim's father, engaged me in convers[at]ion. At that time I did not know his status in the trial but I thought he was somehow part of the proceedings. I became aware of who Mr. Paul was at a later point in the trial, before deliberations. [¶] Mr. Paul and I discussed the fact that we were both U.S. Marine Corps veterans. Additionally, Mr. Paul told me about his planned prostate surgery. In his amended declaration, C.B. confirmed the accuracy of his previous declaration, but stated that [n]othing about that conversation with him was mentioned in deliberations and had anything to do with my verdict. The court found that it was misconduct for Juror C.B. to have a hallway conversation with someone he knew to be part of the proceedings, but concluded that no prejudice resulted given the content of the discussion, the manner in which it occurred, and its brevity. We agree the incident was harmless. Of course it was misconduct for the jurors to communicate with anyone associated with the case. (See § 1122.) ( People v. Jones (1998) 17 Cal.4th 279, 310 [70 Cal.Rptr.2d 793, 949 P.2d 890]; see also People v. Stewart (2004) 33 Cal.4th 425, 510 [15 Cal.Rptr.3d 656, 93 P.3d 271].) This conversation, however, could not have been prejudicial. The two men discussed the fact that they had both been Marines, and Mr. Paul's impending surgery. Such a conversation is not, judged objectively, inherently and substantially likely to have influenced the juror. ( In re Carpenter, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 653.) Nor does it objectively demonstrate a substantial likelihood, or even a reasonable possibility, of actual bias. ( People v. Danks, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 303; see Stewart, at pp. 509-510 [juror's compliment to defendant's former girlfriend did not concern the merits of the case and was misconduct of a trifling nature]; People v. Phelan (1899) 123 Cal. 551, 567 [56 P. 424] [juror's conversation with a victim's brother on a subject unrelated to the case was not misconduct].)