 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Guerrero6/11/2002
egrity of a trial requires that jurors, at all times during their deliberations, conduct themselves as required by these instructions. Accordingly, should it occur that any juror refuses to deliberate or expresses an intention to disregard the law or to decide the case based on penalty or punishment or any other improper basis, it is the obligation of the other jurors to immediately advise the court of the situation.
The contention is without merit.
Guerrero argues the instruction improperly chills jury deliberations, deprives him of the right to a unanimous verdict of 12 independent jurors, and deprives the jury of its power of nullification.
We reject those arguments.
Jurors have a duty to follow the court's instructions in rendering a verdict. (People v. Daniels (1991) 52 Cal.3d 815, 865.) The jury "only has the right to find the facts, and apply to them the law as given by the court." (People v. Lem You (1893) 97 Cal. 224, 228, overruled on another ground in People v. Kobrin (1995) 11 Cal.4th 416, 427, fn. 7.) CALJIC No. 17.41.1 encompasses this concept and is unassailable in this regard.
As the Court of Appeal observed in People v. Elam (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 298, 312: "CALJIC No. 17.41.1 neither interferes with a defendant's right to a jury trial nor has a chilling or coercive effect on juror deliberations." Each juror takes an oath to render a verdict based solely on the evidence presented and the instructions of the court. (Ibid.) Although the privacy of jury deliberations must be safeguarded, " he need to protect the sanctity of jury deliberations . . . does not preclude reasonable inquiry by the court into allegations of misconduct during deliberations. (People v. Cleveland (2001) 25 Cal.4th 466, 476.) CALJIC No. 17.41.1 permits reasonable inquiry when a possibility of misconduct exists. (People v. Elam, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 312.) The instruction merely reminds jurors of their oath and obligation. It does not compromise the integrity of the deliberative process, but rather restates some of the jurors' duties and informs them that they should advise the trial court if they believe a fellow juror is engaging in misconduct.
Indeed, CALJIC No. 17.41.1 reinforces the juror obligations that are set forth in other well-established instructions. For example, jurors have a responsibility to deliberate as impartial judges of the facts. (See CALJIC Nos. 17.40, 17.41.) Jurors must accept and follow the law as stated to them by the court, regardless of whether the jurors agree with the law. (See CALJIC Nos. 0.50, 1.00.) Jurors must decide the case solely upon the evidence presented to them. (See CALJIC Nos. 0.50, 1.03.) Jurors must not discuss or consider the subject of penalty or punishment. (See CALJIC No. 17.42.) Jurors must not be influenced by pity for, or prejudice against, the defendant or by mere sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice or public opinion. (See CALJIC Nos. 0.50, 1.00.)
In essence, CALJIC No. 17.41.1 summarizes these instructions and makes it clear each juror has a duty to inform the court if any other juror refuses to deliberate, expresses an intention to disregard the law, or expresses an intention to decide the case based on penalty or any other improper basis.
CALJIC No. 17.41.1 does not encourage the reporting of legitimate disputes inside the jury room; it merely requires the reporting of jury misconduct. As evidenced by multiple cases decided before CALJIC No. 17.41.1 was written, jurors routinely report misconduct when they believe it has occurred. (See, e.g., People v. Cleveland, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 470; People v. Bradford (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1229, 1349-1350; Peopl
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|