Opinion ID: 1897441
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Juror Contact History

Text: [¶ 14] After the jury panel was questioned about their knowledge of the case and whether they could be impartial, some jurors were asked individual follow-up questions, and some jurors were excused for cause. Then in a side bar discussion, counsel for Chesnel asked the court to question the panel further as to any details of news reports they recalled, leading to the following discussion: (Counsel for Chesnel): I would also ask if any of the jurors are familiar with media reports involving any details concerning Mr. Chesnel or Mr. Tomah related to any topic which really picks up from the other case, [5] because the question you asked.... (The Court): Do you want to open the door to that? (Counsel for Chesnel): I don't want to mention another case. I just want to say do you recall anything relating to Mr. Tomah or Mr. Chesnel relating to anything whatsoever. (The Court): Okay. [¶ 15] To accommodate the defense's request, the court first asked a follow-up question as to whether any of the jurors who had indicated that they had heard something about the case, recalled any of the details of the case. To this question, one juror responded affirmatively. Following the question about the case, the court then asked: And is there any member of the jury panel, ladies and gentlemen, who may recall reading anything in the newspaper or hearing anything on the news concerning either of the defendants, either concerning this case or any other reason? No jurors responded to this question. [¶ 16] The court then proceeded to ask jurors about issues unrelated to their knowledge of the case or the defendants, such as whether any jurors possessed a law enforcement background. At the conclusion of these questions, the court again asked counsel if there were any additional questions they wished the court to ask the jury. Counsel for the State and for both defendants responded in the negative. Following the court's consideration of more challenges for cause, counsel for Chesnel renewed the motion for a change of venue, which the court denied. The jury was then selected. After each counsel exercised peremptory challenges, the court asked if counsel were satisfied with the jury as constituted, to which all three counsel replied: Yes, your honor. [6] [¶ 17] After the trial and the guilty verdicts, counsel for Chesnel sent a private investigator to find and interview the trial jurors in an attempt to find evidence of prior knowledge of the murder or the attack occurring in Sabattus. The defense actions were what might be characterized as a fishing expedition since, as counsel acknowledged at oral argument, he had no prior indication of juror misconduct. [¶ 18] As a result of contacts with jurors identified in the record as A, B, and C, the private investigator reported as follows: 1. Juror A advised that, during the jury's deliberations, he had heard Juror B make a statement regarding Chesnel that was not part of the trial testimony. Juror A stated that he did not recall exactly what Juror B had said. 2. Juror B stated that he was aware of the details of the assault occurring in Sabattus involving Chesnel as they were recounted in the newspapers prior to the trial. The investigator also asserted that Juror B expressed considerable remorse that he had not informed the court of this knowledge prior to the trial. 3. Juror C asserted that during the course of jury deliberations, Juror B had said: (Chesnel) is perfectly capable of something like that. He did the same thing in Sabattus with a hammer. [¶ 19] Chesnel filed a timely motion for a new trial, [7] supported by affidavits from his private investigator about the statements the investigator claimed the jurors had made to him. A hearing on the motion for a new trial was scheduled at which the involved jurors were subpoenaed to appear. After hearing arguments but no testimony, the court, citing M.R. Evid. Rule 606(b), denied the motion for a new trial. In its ruling, the court stated that the law does not permit the verdict of the jury to be impeached by the testimony of the jurors themselves as to what took place in the jury room during their deliberations. [¶ 20] After the court's ruling and while this appeal was pending, counsel for the State asked us to stay the appeal and remand the case to the trial court to reopen the matter and take testimony from Juror B to properly determine (i) Juror B's alleged knowledge of the prior attack, and (ii) whether Juror B had improperly failed to respond to the court's voir dire questions regarding knowledge of the defendants. Defense counsel objected to this request, preferring to leave the record as it existed. [8] We denied the stay, the trial court took no further action, and the matter is now before us on appeal on the present record.