Opinion ID: 2599073
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Juror misconduct (newspaper article covering opening statements)

Text: On May 16, 1991, the second day of trial, it was brought to the court's attention that an article had appeared in that morning's edition of the Oakland Tribune describing the opening statements that had been presented in defendant's trial the previous day. The article mentioned that, A prosecutor yesterday began the trial of an ex-convict by weaving a tale of the defendant's two-month string of Oakland robberies that included the killing of a popular bartender. The article also indicated the defendant has served time in state prison for burglary. Finally, the article described a colloquy between defendant, the prosecutor, and the court concerning the Batson-Wheeler motion that had been made during jury selection: At the start of yesterday's proceeding, Stanley personally complained to Judge Alfred Delucchi that the prosecutor had excluded most of the black potential jurors from serving on the panel. [¶] `My life is on the line because this is a death penalty case and the makeup of the jury is unfair,' he told the judge. [¶] The jury includes one black man among the 12 regular jurors and two of the three alternates are black people. [¶] Looking directly at Stanley, [Deputy District Attorney] Landswick responded that `you don't deserve anything special because you're black.... You only deserve a fair trial and I'll do my best to see that you get that.' [¶] The prosecutor also explained that some of the potential black jurors were excused because they indicated they had a certain compassion for Stanley because of his race. One juror, James C., had read the article. The court proceeded to examine him outside the presence of the other jurors as follows: THE COURT: And we have Juror Number One, Mr. [C.], here having apparently read the article in the paper this morning. [¶] Mr. [C.], can youcan you tell us what you read or what you recall reading in the newspaper? [JUROR C.]: Well, I remember that WillI can't remember who wrote it. THE COURT: Will Jones? [JUROR C.]: Will Jones. Okay. [¶] And they surveyed, I guess, what had actually happened by the opening comments of both men, the prosecution and the defendant attorneys. And I thought there was nothing that hadn'tI was pleased that it was pretty factual for what actually had happened, I thought. THE COURT: Yeah. Do you recall reading any comments in the paper about the defendant at all other than the statements he may have made to the Court? [JUROR C.]: No, no. I onlyNo. I thoughtActually, I read the Tribune. I thought it was a pretty good report of what had happened yesterday, accurate, I should say. THE COURT: Do you recall whether or not there was any allegations as to whether or not the defendant has any prior convictions? [JUROR C.]: No, I didn't. THE COURT: Okay. [JUROR C.]: I've not heard that at all any place. THE COURT: Okay. And you have no independent recollection of ever reading anything like that in the article? [JUROR C.]: No. THE COURT: Okay. The court then permitted Defense Counsel Hove to ask the juror if he recalled any reference in the article to a discussion of the racial composition of the jury: [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: In regards to the article, did you notice or do you recall whether or not, in reading it, there was any reference to the fact of the race of Mr. Stanley and as to whether or not he would get a fair trial, comments going back and forth between he and the prosecutor, Mr. Landswick? [JUROR C.]: I don't remember anything about race. I remember that there was a quote in there  I'm not sure of who was quoted or who was stated, but yes, I thought it was the Judge said that he was out to see that he got a fair trial. I'm not sure who was quoted by that. THE COURT: But you have no independent recollection about any reference being made to race? [JUROR C.]: No, I don't. THE COURT: Okay, Anything else? [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: From what you read  obviously you've heard only one witness in this case and the opening statements that were made. Did you have  reading the article have any effect on you after you've heard that one witness, Dr. Badger? [JUROR C.]: I don't even remember that he was  that he was mentioned. I don't remember that. I just remember that the opening arguments were sort of summarized. That's really what I remember. And I thought it was accurately reproduced. THE COURT: Reproduced? [JUROR C.]: Yes. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Would you say you read the article more than one time? [JUROR C.]: Oh, no. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Okay. And would that have been  [JUROR C.]: I read the whole paper. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: You read the whole paper? [JUROR C.]: Yeah. Almost all of it, yes. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I don't know. Was there any discussion up there in the jury room with any of the other jurors about the fact that there was, in fact, an article in the paper? [JUROR C.]: No, there was no discussion. It wasn't brought up at all. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Thank you. The court concluded its inquiry of Juror C. with the following two questions: THE COURT: Is there anything that you may have read reciting the events that took place yesterday in this courtroom that you think might affect your ability to be a fair juror in this case? [JUROR C.]: No. THE COURT: You could still sit here and listen to it and call it the way you see it, correct? [JUROR C.]: Yes. The court permitted Mr. C. to remain seated on the jury, and gave the following admonishment to the jurors: Now Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, because the article has now appeared in the Tribune and it may appear in some of the other papers  and I don't know whether its going to appear or not or be presented or not on TV  but in the interest of fairness, I want to advise you now that if you see any reference to this trial in any of the media  It's on TV, turn it off. If you see any newspaper articles about this trial, I want to caution you now please don't read those newspaper articles because what we want you to do is to decide this case only on what you hear in the courtroom, and we don't want you to be  to use the word  and I don't mean it to be sarcastic  we don't want you to be polluted by some outside information that may or may not be correct. Juror C.'s reading of the newspaper article, and his inadvertent receipt of information outside the court proceedings, was misconduct giving rise to a rebuttable presumption of prejudice. ( People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, 994, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 122, 846 P.2d 704 ( Zapien ); People v. Holloway (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1098, 1108, 269 Cal.Rptr. 530, 790 P.2d 1327.) `[W]hether a defendant has been injured by jury misconduct in receiving evidence outside of court necessarily depends upon whether the jury's impartiality has been adversely affected, whether the prosecutor's burden of proof has been lightened and whether any asserted defense has been contradicted. If the answer to any of these questions is in the affirmative, the defendant has been prejudiced and the conviction must be reversed. On the other hand, since jury misconduct is not per se reversible, if a review of the entire record demonstrates that the appellant has suffered no prejudice from the misconduct a reversal is not compelled. [Citation.]' ( People v. Williams (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1127, 1156, 245 Cal.Rptr. 635, 751 P.2d 901.) ( Zapien, at p. 994, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 122, 846 P.2d 704.) At the outset, we note defendant has conceded that his counsel failed to object to Juror C.'s continued service on the jury, and failed to request a mistrial on grounds of juror misconduct. As such, the claim is waived on appeal. ( People v. Billings (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 422, 433, 177 Cal.Rptr. 392, overruled on other grounds in People v. Karis (1988) 46 Cal.3d 612, 642, fn. 22, 250 Cal.Rptr. 659, 758 P.2d 1189; see People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 486-487, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 525, 907 P.2d 373.) Juror C. was the only juror who read the article; he confirmed there had been no discussion with any of the other jurors about the fact that an article about the case had appeared in the morning paper. In response to the court's and counsel's questioning, he indicated he had no recollection of having read anything about defendant's prior criminal record, or about defendant having discussed the racial makeup of the jury with the court. Juror C. read through the article only once, and recalled that it sort of summarized the opening arguments, That's really what I remember. And I thought it was accurately reproduced. He further indicated nothing he read would affect his ability to be a fair juror in the case. After ruling that Juror C. could remain seated on the jury, the court admonished the jury, in the interest of fairness, to avoid any reference to this trial in any of the media, including any newspaper articles that might appear about the trial, because what we want you to do is to decide this case only on what you hear in the courtroom.... Defendant suggests that, While it is true that [Mr. C.], when questioned, specifically denied recalling any reference to [defendant's] past convictions or [his] complaint concerning the racial composition of the jury ... these denials defy all logic and credibility. Defendant urges us to reject Juror C.'s responses as lacking in credibility and to find instead that the juror read the article in such a manner as to conveniently forget the highly prejudicial matters contained therein. To the contrary, normally [w]e accept the trial court's credibility determinations and findings on questions of historical fact if supported by substantial evidence. ( People v. Nesler (1997) 16 Cal.4th 561, 582, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 454, 941 P.2d 87; People v. Pride (1992) 3 Cal.4th 195, 260, 10 Cal. Rptr.2d 636, 833 P.2d 643.) We may not substitute our reading of the cold transcript in this case for the credibility determinations reached by the trial court after making its inquiry, observing the juror, and listening to his responses. ( Abbott v. Mandiola (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 676, 682-683, 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 808.) We find those credibility determinations supported by substantial evidence and conclude the presumption of prejudice from the juror misconduct has been rebutted in this case.