Opinion ID: 2570148
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Speculation on the Gaughan Report

Text: In the original declarations, several jurors stated that there was some discussion of what other information might be in the Gaughan psychiatric report prepared in connection with defendant's Arizona crimes. (See pt. II.B.1., ante. ) In her amended declaration, the foreperson stated, There was some curiosity about the Arizona psychiatric report, but I reminded the jury that we had to consider only what was before us and could not speculate about what was not. Her amended declaration is consistent with those of the other jurors. [29] The court ruled that the jury's expressions of interest in the report did not rise to the level of misconduct, and even if they did the matter was only a passing question which was answered with a strong admonition by the court [when the report came up during trial] and followed up with the readmonition by the foreperson of the jury. The court's ruling was proper. The declarations do not show that speculation about the Gaughan report played a role in the deliberations, and any possibility that it did was mitigated by the foreperson's reminder.