Opinion ID: 2507985
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reading of newspaper articles

Text: The jury commenced deliberation on Monday, November 9, 1992. After less than two hours, it recessed until the next morning. The jury then deliberated all that day, making several requests for clarification of legal issues and reading of testimony. The jury next deliberated on November 12. That day, the court received a note from the jury foreperson: We are having great difficulty in reaching a unanimous decision. We would like further instruction on how to proceed. After discussion, the jury agreed to return the next day and attempt to resolve its differences. On Friday, November 13, at 2:30 p.m., the jury sent another note to the court: We can go no further. We are not unanimous in our decision. Before the court could act on the note, the jury sent another one at 2:55 p.m., stating: Upon further discussion, we have decided to take one last vote on Monday morning. On Monday, November 16, the jury returned a verdict of death. On December 22, defendant moved for a new trial. He alleged that a juror had read newspaper articles about the case during the trial and that two other jurors had considered an article before rendering the verdict. Jury Foreman M.G., in a supplemental declaration, identified the juror who said she had read articles about the case during trial as Juror R.D. Juror M.G. was reasonably certain that some jurors had discussed the article on November 16, before reaching the verdict, namely, Juror M.B. and either Juror S.S. or Juror P.B. The foreman also stated: I am reasonably certain that it was Juror S.S. who pulled the newspaper article out of her purse. [7] These jurors submitted counterdeclarations. Juror R.D. denied reading any articles during the trial or deliberations. I never told anyone that I was reading articles about the case during the trial. Juror M.B. also denied reading any articles. She did state that after the jury was discharged, she heard someone (she could not remember who) mention one article. Juror S.S. also stated that she had not read any newspaper articles or heard Juror P.B. discuss the weekend article in the jury deliberation room on November 16. Juror S.S. did describe what occurred in a restaurant when the jury gathered after rendering the verdict: After the verdict had been reached on Monday, November 16, the jury was waiting to be called into the courtroom. Juror B.T. pulled a folded newspaper out of her purse. She stated someone had given her the paper, but she had not read it. [¶] I told [B.T.] I would like to read the article. [B.T.] handed me the folded paper and I put it in my purse. I did not read it at that time. [¶] After the verdicts were read, and the jury dismissed, many jurors met for breakfast. [¶] At the restaurant, I remembered the newspaper in my purse. I took the paper out and read the Saturday, November 14 article at that time. Juror L.S. also filed a declaration stating she did not read any newspaper articles during the trial or deliberations. She did note that after the jurors had reached a verdict and were waiting to be called into the courtroom, Juror M.B. pulled an article about the case out of her purse that a coworker had given her sometime over the weekend. Juror L.S. interrupted and advised Juror M.B. not to discuss the article. The new trial motion was argued on January 8, 1993. The court found that under a preponderance of the evidence the defense has shown misconduct, in that the articles may have been read during the course of this trial. The court summarized the content of the articles, and concluded that in general, they consisted of neutral summaries of the trial events. In finding misconduct, the court never identified which incident or article influenced its conclusion. The court simply stated: I feel that by a preponderance of the evidence that the defense has shown misconduct, in that articles may have been read during the course of this trial. The objective nature of the articles, and their seemingly innocuous content, however, led the court to conclude that defendant had not been prejudiced, even assuming the jurors read them. The court also noted that [t]his was also a case in which the facts really were not in dispute. After assessing the entire case record, and determining the jury was conscientious, the court denied defendant's motion for a new trial.