Opinion ID: 770943
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jury Deliberations and Verdict

Text: 25 In the guilt phase, the jury deliberated for fifteen days. On January 4, 1984, the last day of deliberations, the jury sent a note to the court: 26 If the defendant was not the actual killer with the gun, but was involved in the crime, can he be considered to have killed the victim as stated in the special circumstance of nationality and country of origin in that he was a Turkish National? 27 Also if we can agree on a verdict, but cannot agree on any of the special circumstances, what would our procedure be? 28 Answering the second question, the court stated that if the jury could not agree on the special circumstances, they should return a verdict addressing only the issue of guilt. To address the first question, the prosecutor then suggested that the court give an additional aiding and abetting instruction. The judge did not give the requested instruction. Instead, he stated on the record that he was unsure what the jury meant by the first question. He then returned the jury to the jury room to resume its deliberations at 2:40 p.m. At 3:50 p.m. on the same day, the jury returned its verdict. 29 The jury found Sassounian guilty of first degree murder and also found true the special circumstance of murder because of nationality or national origin, but did not reach a verdict on the other special circumstance -- lying in wait, see Cal. Penal Code 190.2(a)(16) -- or on the charge that the defendant had used a gun in the commission of the crime, see id. 12022.5. 30 Following receipt of the verdict, the jurors were excused to return for the penalty phase on January 10. Late that day or early the next, juror Dylane Rankins sent a note to the judge which read: 31 Your Honor, is it too late to change my vote on one of the special circumstances? On Wednesday, 4th, I was ill. I was unable to think clearly because of my illness and the pressure from the other jurors. Now my sickness is over, except for the coughing. I can think clearer. I feel I have made an error. Also based on some evidence that was brought out in our deliberations that wasn't evidence brought out in court. 32 After receiving the note from Rankins, the court interviewed each juror. Several of the jurors stated that during deliberations, a juror mentioned a phone call made to the Turkish Consulate threatening or taking credit for the assassination of the victim. 33 During the trial, the prosecution had attempted to introduce evidence that a UPI reporter received a phone call on January 28, 1982, from an individual who took credit for the assassination on behalf of the Justice Commandos for the Armenian Genocide. After argument at sidebar, the trial judge had excluded the testimony and the UPI reporter never testified. 34 When asked what her note meant, Juror Rankins testified that the jury was deliberating about the nationality special circumstance and the related instruction. She testified: 35 And it stated in the instruction... that if there were no other reason that you can say why the defendant did kill the Turkish Consul because of his nationality, that you should go for the most reasonable reason.... Well, I had doubt in the beginning about that based on Busch's testimony. And I kept that doubt for quite a while, but until this statement was brought up, which sort of changed my mind. 36 In response to the court's question as to what statement she was referring to, Juror Rankins further testified: 37 Well, one of the jurors mentioned that there was a phone call made to the Turkish Consulate concerning a threatening call and said why would there be other reasons, assuming the call. At the time I was really sick and I guess I just wanted to kind of go home. So it was a lot of pressure. So I said, you know, I couldn't think of any other reason why, even though there was doubt.... But after realizing, now that my sickness is over, and I can think clearer, that I don't believe that the evidence was brought out in court. And this is what I made my decision on, on that statement. 38 When interviewed by the court, three other jurors -- Kennelly, Castillo and Walker -- recalled discussion of the phone call during deliberations but the remainder did not. Juror Kennelly said she remembered the introduction of evidence of the phone call having to do with publicity for the assassination. It may be that Juror Kennelly overheard the sidebar argument at which the call was ruled inadmissible. 3 See People v. Sassounian, 226 Cal. Rptr. at 913 (Johnson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Juror Castillo, the foreman, remembered that someone had mentioned the phone call after the jury had asked the question about being unable to agree on a special circumstance. According to Juror Castillo,we felt that since it wasn't mentioned in court, it wasn't something we could elaborate on. 4 39 The trial judge, without explanation, declared there was no jury misconduct. At the conclusion of the penalty phase, the jury returned a verdict of life without possibility of parole. 5