Opinion ID: 1435822
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Diaz Denied Fair Trial Extraneous Prejudicial Evidence

Text: The right to a fair trial by an impartial jury of one's peers is fundamental to the American criminal justice system. [40] The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. An essential ingredient of that right is for jury verdicts to be based solely on the evidence presented at trial. [41] The accused's rights to confrontation, cross-examination and the assistance of counsel [42] assure the accuracy of the testimony which the jurors hear and safeguard the proper admission of other evidence. [43] Those rights can be exercised effectively only if evidence is presented to the jury in the courtroom. [44] Both sides in a criminal proceeding have an interest in what information is given to the jury. When, as in Diaz's trial, the jury includes a bilingual juror and the testimony of some witnesses are in a language other than English, restrictions on the juror who is conversant with that foreign language are essential. [45] The rules of evidence and the translation of a qualified court interpreter would be vitiated if a bilingual juror was free to give his or her own opinion on the proper translation of foreign language testimony to the other jurors. [46] The record reflects that Juror # 6 stated that her disagreement with the official interpreter's translation of Ms. Rivera's Spanish testimony changes the whole picture of, you know, where the accident really happened. The record also reflects that Juror # 6 discussed her disagreement with the other jurors. It was clearly improper for Juror # 6 to convey her own translation of Ms. Rivera's foreign language testimony to the other jurors. The impact of Juror # 6's comments to the other jurors about her disagreement with the court interpreter's foreign language translations is appropriately described in the following quote: Had evidence of such matters been offered and admitted over his objections, it would have been reversible error. If the admission of such evidence in the trial, where he at least might have had opportunity to meet and perchance explain the damaging facts, would be prejudicial, it cannot be less so when the facts are brought to the attention of the jurors in the jury room by one of their fellows whose word, of course, the others have no reason to doubt and without the knowledge or consent of defendant nor with any opportunity for him to explain the facts or rebut the unfavorable inferences. [47] In Diaz's case, Juror # 6 became an unsworn, uncross-examined, and unqualified witness who presented inadmissible evidence of her own foreign language translation to the other jurors. The issue is whether the communication of that inadmissible evidence by Juror # 6 to the other jurors, outside of the courtroom, infringed on Diaz's right to a fair trial. The United States Supreme Court has indicated that due process requires trial courts to take strong measures to ensure that the balance is never weighed against the accused. [48] In Diaz's case, however, the trial judge did not question the other jurors, did not give either the other jurors or Juror # 6 any curative instruction, and did not take any remedial action. The Superior Court's inaction makes it impossible for Diaz to demonstrate that the other jurors were actually biased by the prejudicial information to which they were exposed by Juror # 6. [49] Under these circumstances, requiring a defendant to show `actual bias' would be too onerous a burden to impose. [50] This Court and the United States Supreme Court have held that even if there is no showing of actual bias in the tribunal, ... due process is denied by circumstances that create the likelihood or the appearance of bias. [51] Diaz has met the burden of persuasion. Twenty-five years ago, this Court held fairness and, indeed, the integrity of the judicial process, make it imperative that jurors receive information about the case only as a corporate body in the courtroom. [52] A defendant in a criminal case is denied his Sixth Amendment right to a trial by an impartial jury if only one juror is improperly influenced. [53] The record of Juror # 6's misconduct, in combination with the absence of any inquiry or curative action by the Superior Court, compels this Court to conclude that Diaz's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial was violated. Consequently, Diaz's convictions must be reversed and this matter will be remanded for a new trial.