Opinion ID: 677610
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prejudicial conduct of juror Kondo.

Text: 36 AY next contends that the conduct of juror Kondo, and the district court's inadequate response to it, fatally prejudiced AY's case. Juror Kondo passed two notes to the judge, one on day seven of the trial and one on day nine. In the first note, she complained about the volume of testimony and about losing money by being forced to sit on the jury. The judge called a sidebar, at which he proposed a response to the note to which the attorneys agreed. Defense counsel raised the possibility of excusing the juror, but made no motion to do so and soon agreed with the judge's proposed reply. We find no judicial misconduct here. 37 Juror Kondo's second note, in which she stated that [e]ven if counsel for defense were fortunate enough to have drawn a jury of brain-damaged individuals, they still would have no case, left no doubt that she needed to be excused. The judge again discussed the problem with counsel and recommended waiting until the end of the day to excuse her so there [wouldn't] be any upset. AY requested that she be removed immediately, moved for a mistrial, and asked the judge to voir dire the jury to see if Kondo had affected their impartiality. The judge refused, not wanting to indicate to the jurors that there is any problem. After the jury returned its verdict, the judge asked the jury whether during your discussions in the jury room, anything that Ms. Kondo said or did during the trial affected you in your deliberations as to your individual assessments of the evidence in the case. All jurors answered no. 38 The record thus indicates that the district judge handled the problem in a fair and even-handed manner. There is no evidence of judicial bias. 39