Opinion ID: 2331534
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Jury Deliberations Untainted

Text: After the penalty hearing was completely finished, an alternate juror spoke about the deliberations with one of the jurors. From that conversation, the alternate juror concluded that the jury had access to material during its deliberations that had not been admitted into evidence. [38] This was reported to the trial judge. An essential ingredient of the right to trial by jury is for jury verdicts to be based solely on the evidence presented at trial. [39] The accused's rights to confrontation, cross-examination and the assistance of counsel assure the accuracy of the testimony which the jurors hear and safeguard the proper admission of other evidence. [40] Those rights can be exercised effectively only if evidence is presented to the jury in the courtroom. [41] The trial judge conducted a hearing on two separate days. He questioned both the alternate juror and the deliberating juror with whom she had spoken. The deliberating juror explained that the there was no material in the jury room that had not been admitted into evidence. According to the juror, the alternate juror's confusion may have originated from the fact that at least one videotape, that was shown only in part at trial in order to conserve time, was viewed in its entirety by the jury during deliberations. The alternate juror agreed with the juror's characterization of their conversation. The trial judge concluded that no material had been viewed by the jury during deliberations that had not been admitted into evidence during trial. Under the facts of this case, there was no need to question all twelve of the jurors individually. The judge acted properly in immediately investigating and resolving the issue when it came to his attention. The record supports the trial judge's conclusion.