 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Clavano9/8/2005
r deliberations would assist the jury in reaching a verdict. Under these circumstances, the trial court reasonably concluded that the jury should have made a better effort to reach an agreement.
Nor did the trial court's comments coerce the jury or "operate to displace the independent judgment of the jury in favor of considerations of compromise and expediency." (People v. Carter, supra, 68 Cal.2d at p. 817.) At 8 to 4, the jury was rather evenly split on the issue of guilt. While the court should not have asked the jurors how they had voted, it was nonetheless careful not to indicate or suggest to the jurors how they should vote. Instead, it only reminded the jurors that they had not been deliberating long, and asked them to look over the evidence and the instructions and see whether they could come to "some resolution of those issues." It is also significant that the trial court's comments were made to a jury panel which was rather evenly split at 8 to 4; the deadlock was not 11 to 1 or 10 to 2. And, following the verdict, the jury was polled and each juror affirmed that the verdicts and true findings were theirs.
B. The Trial Court Properly Denied Defendants' Motion to Release Confidential Juror Identifying Information
Defendants contend that the trial court erroneously denied their motion to release juror identifying information that they claim they needed to prepare a motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct. They argue that they were entitled to the information in order to investigate whether any juror misconduct occurred during the final hour of deliberations. We conclude that there was no error, because defendants did not establish good cause for releasing the information.
Upon the recording of a jury verdict in a criminal case, the court's record of the jurors' personal identifying information -- their names, addresses and phone numbers -- is to be sealed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 237, subd. (a)(2).) Any person may petition the court for disclosure of the identifying information, and the petition must be supported by a declaration establishing good cause for the disclosure. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 237, subd. (b) & 206, subd. (g); Townsel v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1084, 1098, fn. 7; People v. Granish (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1131.) Good cause, in the context of a petition for disclosure to support a motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct, requires "a sufficient showing to support a reasonable belief that jury misconduct occurred . . . ." (People v. Rhodes (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 541, 551-552.) We review the denial of a petition for disclosure for an abuse of discretion. (People v. Jones (1998) 17 Cal.4th 279, 317.)
The requirement of a preliminary showing of juror misconduct is critical. (People v. Rhodes, supra, 212 Cal.App.3d. at pp. 551-552.) "Absent a satisfactory, preliminary showing of possible juror misconduct, the strong public interests in the integrity of our jury system and a juror's right to privacy outweigh the countervailing public interest served by disclosure of the juror information as a matter of right in each case. This rule safeguards both juror privacy and the integrity of our jury process against unwarranted `fishing expeditions' by parties hoping to uncover information to invalidate the jury's verdict. At the same time, it protects a defendant's right to a verdict uninfluenced by prejudicial juror misconduct by permitting, upon a showing of good cause, access to juror information needed to investigate allegations of juror misconduct." (Id. at p. 552, fn. omitted.)
Jurors commit misconduct if they directly violate the oath, duties, and admonitions imposed upon them. (In re Hamilton (1999)
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|