Court Opinion

ID: 9746879
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 14:42:13.243983+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:17.874627
License: Public Domain

VOGEL (MIRIAM A.), J., Dissenting.
To the extent the majority finds error with regard to the removal of Juror No. 3 (pt. VII, pp. 313-318), I dissent. In my view, the majority’s conclusion ignores the record.
The foreman’s note said “[tjhere [was] a perception problem with Juror No. 3[, p]ossibly a language understanding. Help.” When questioned by the court, the foreman (Juror No. 6) said the majority of the jurors felt that Juror No. 3 was “not understanding the process, maybe the law here. We are having trouble understanding him, and we feel he is having problems trying to explain different points of view. We don’t think he is grasping the big picture.”
When questioning Juror No. 3, the trial court was unable to understand several of the juror’s answers and had to ask him to repeat himself. At one point, the court stated, “I am having a little trouble [understanding you]. You do have a pronounced accent.” Juror No. 3 agreed, responding, “Yes, I have an accent” (although he insisted there was “no language problem”). Although the record is not clear, it appears that his primary language is Tagalog (he grew up in “Hawaii, the Philippines, [and] Guam,” with Spanish-speaking parents). At the time of trial, Juror No. 3 had been in the United States only a year, before which he had been living in Italy where he spoke “mostly Italian, Spanish and English.”
All of the other jurors thought there was a language problem.
Juror No. 1 said, “I believe there is a language problem.” When the court explained that it needed to “distinguish between a situation where somebody understands, but disagrees with others, versus somebody who doesn’t seem to understand,” Juror No. 1 again said that Juror No. 3 “really doesn’t understand . . . .”
*319Juror No. 2 said, “I believe it might be a language problem . . . . It is not getting across to him what we are speaking about .... I think he doesn’t understand some of the specifics of the law, the way it is being read. ... I don’t think he understands it.”
Juror No. 4 said, “I tend to think we maybe have a language problem, that type of thing .... I kind of think whether it is really a language issue or just a total misunderstanding of what we are here for. . . .”
Juror No. 5 said it was “definitely” a language problem, “[a]nd comprehension. ... It becomes so frustrating because none of us feel he understands what we are saying. I’m not sure if this could have been detected when we were all questioned as jurors, but it is very obvious now. ... I can’t believe ... he comprehends what occurred.”
Juror No. 7 said “yes,” Juror No. 3 had a language problem, and that the language problem affected Juror No. 3’s ability to follow the court’s instructions. Juror No. 7 thought the discussion was “probably” moving too fast for Juror No. 3’s grasp of English.
Juror No. 8 believed “that it could be” a language problem, and that there “seem[ed] to be a potential difficulty to understanding and speaking about subjects that are involved with the trial.” According to Juror No. 8, Juror No. 3’s understanding of English was “above 50 percent. I know that more than half is being understood, but it is not 100 percent either.”
Juror No. 9 said, “Juror No. 3 is really having a hard time comprehending. I think it is the language plus understanding the law. . . . The more we talk, the more I can see he just doesn’t understand. There are certain things that he would take a real hard stand on and then he would change it. He was getting confused. ... I notice he gets the overall idea. When you get down to certain words or certain phrases, he doesn’t understand what you are saying. We would have to repeat ourselves, or he would talk back and it wouldn’t be what we were saying. It would show that he didn’t understand what we were saying in phrases or certain words.”
Juror No. 10 said it was “a problem of communication. . . . Some language problem, I think, and some understanding of the words. Like what we are saying, I don’t know if he knows the words that we are talking about sometimes, because it is like—it is—he has a hard time understanding it.”
Juror No. 11 said “there is a definite problem with understanding and comprehension. It is extremely frustrating. We are talking about one thing *320and he is talking about something completely different. We are not communicating at all. . . . I’m not sure whether he really understands what we are saying when we talk about credibility or we talk about believability. I don’t think he is understanding. It is just really frustrating for us.”
Juror No. 12 said, “I think Juror No. 3 really doesn’t understand what he is trying to say.” According to Juror No. 12, it was “sometimes” difficult for Juror No. 3 to keep up with the discussions, and he was “quite sure that” was because of Juror No. 3’s problem with English. Juror No. 12 felt “there might be a problem with him expressing himself.”
The trial court heard Juror No. 3 and could determine the extent of his accent and his ability to understand. With that knowledge and based on the other jurors’ comments, the trial court found there was a substantial language problem and that Juror No. 3 had overestimated his own ability to understand the proceedings. In my view, the record amply supports the trial court’s finding and the decision to replace Juror No. 3 with an alternate juror. (People v. Cleveland (2001) 25 Cal.4th 466, 474 [106 Cal.Rptr.2d 313, 21 P.3d 1225].)
A petition for a rehearing was denied August 22, 2001, and the opinion was modified to read as printed above.
*321Appendix
“The Court: . . . Good afternoon, sir. Take any seat, if you would. We have been joined now by Juror No. 3. The reason I have asked you to step out is because it has come to my attention that you may be having some difficulty with the English language. If this is true, we need to talk about it.
“Juror No. 3:1 think there is some, yes. A little bit. I have been in school here almost a year now. I think I can manage.
“The Court: When you were listening to the trial, did you have difficulty with the testimony?
“Juror No. 3: No.
“The Court: I am sorry?
“Juror No. 3: No, Judge.
“The Court: You believe you understood everything?
“Juror No. 3: Yes.
“The Court: The other jurors are concerned, and I need to know if this is a problem for you.
“Juror No. 3: No, Judge. No, Ma’am.
“The Court: You mentioned that you have been going to school.
“Juror No. 3: Yes, Sir [szc].
“The Court: Can you tell me about that[?]
“Juror No. 3: I have taken—just graduated from Associate in Arts in English.
“The Court: An Associate—
“Juror No. 3: In Arts in English. Glendale Community College.
“The Court: I didn’t hear the last part.
“Juror No. 3: Glendale Community College.
*322“The Court: Have you received your A.A. yet?
“Juror No. 3: Yes, Ma’am.
“The Court: How long have you been speaking English?
“Juror No. 3: Well, I was born here, but I grew up outside United States. “The Court: Growing up, what did you speak?
“Juror No. 3:1 was speaking different languages. In the Navy, we speaks English.
“The Court: Growing up, what language did you speak?
“Juror No. 3: English, Ma’am.
“The Court: Where did you grow up?
“Juror No. 3: I grew up Hawaii, Philippines, Guam.
“The Court: What did your parents speak?
“Juror No. 3: Spanish.
“The Court: You were in the military, if I recall?
“Juror No. 3: Yes, I was. Interim.
“The Court: You spoke English in the military?
“Juror No. 3: Yes.
“The Court: You have been back in the United States for how long? “Juror No. 3: About a year now. More than a year.
“The Court: Before this year, where did you live?
“Juror No. 3: In Italy.
“The Court: What did you speak mostly?
*323“Juror No. 3: Mostly some Italian, Spanish and English. Mostly English.
“The Court: Are you taking these classes at Glendale because you want to improve your English?
“Juror No. 3: I took classes for English, yes.
“The Court: I am sorry?
“Juror No. 3: I took the classes in proper English.
“The Court: Is it possible that the jurors are having trouble understanding you? HQ I am having a little trouble. You do have a pronounced accent.
“Juror No. 3: Yes, I have an accent.
“The Court: Do you think the other jurors are having trouble understanding you? Has that happened?
“Juror No. 3: I don’t believe, Ma’am.
“The Court: Why do you think that they are concerned about their inability to communicate with you?
“Juror No. 3: Maybe we see the case differently.
“The Court: You think it is a difference of opinion?
“Juror No. 3: Yes.
“The Court: You don’t think you have any language problem at all? “Juror No. 3: No. No language problem.
“The Court: Have you reviewed the instructions that I sent in?
“Juror No. 3: We read it every time.
“The Court: Have you been reviewing that?
“Juror No. 3: The foreman read to us.
“The Court: Did you feel that you understood?
“Juror No. 3: Yes, Ma’am.
*324“The Court: Do you feel that you are able to participate in the discussions?
“Juror No. 3: Yes, Ma’am.”