 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Clavano9/8/2005
20 Cal.4th 273, 294.) Jurors have a duty to determine the facts based on the evidence and apply the law as given by the trial court. (CALJIC No. 1.00.) Additionally, the parties are entitled to the individual opinion of each juror, and the jurors are not to decide any question in a particular way because a majority of jurors favor that decision. (CALJIC No. 17.40.)
A verdict may not be impeached by evidence of the mental or subjective reasoning processes of the jurors. (Evid. Code, § 1150, subd. (a).) "No evidence is admissible to show the effect certain evidence had upon a juror either in influencing the juror to assent to or dissent from the verdict or concerning the mental processes by which it was determined." (People v. Rhodes, supra, 212 Cal.App.3d at p. 553.) Instead, there must be evidence of "statements made, or conduct, conditions, or events occurring, either within or without the jury room, of such a character as is likely to have influenced the verdict improperly." (Evid. Code, § 1150, subd. (a).)
Here, defendants did not make a sufficient showing to support a reasonable belief that any juror misconduct occurred. In support of their petition, defendants submitted a declaration by Oliver's trial counsel, Attorney Sean O'Connor. Attorney O'Connor's declaration stated: "Good cause for the disclosure of the requested information exits because after involved deliberations, on November 19, 2003 the jury informed the court that it was deadlocked on reaching a verdict. The jury declared that they were split in opinion eight to four as to a possible verdict and felt no further deliberations would assist them. After further instruction from the court, within a very short period of time, the jury then returned with a guilty verdict. After a lengthy trial, the very brief deliberations following the court's instructions illustrate at least the possibility for juror misconduct. Further, statements from some of the jurors upon inquiry after their declaration of deadlock indicate a possibility of juror misconduct. Lastly, upon inquiry of the jury following their verdict, many juror referenced conduct during their deliberations following the court's instruction to return to deliberations and the sense of pressure they felt to then return a verdict. Moreover, many of the jurors at this time expressed a sense of being disciplined by the court for not arriving a verdict earlier. Based upon the above[,] good cause exists to disclose the information of the jurors in order to question them as to the possibility of juror misconduct." (Italics added.)
Attorney O'Connor was not present at the hearing on the petition. On behalf of both defendants, Amando's counsel made a further offer of proof that one juror said the jurors "felt like we were spanked by the judge saying, `Hey you need to get going.'" The trial judge, who was present when the comment was made, responded that it was made in a "humorous vein." Still, Amando's counsel argued, "What we're simply asking is a chance. They might tell us to go pound sand, these jurors, but we want to find out what if anything happened, you know, in terms of pressure or anything else. . . ."
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition. Neither counsel's declaration nor the further offer of proof made at the hearing were sufficient to support a reasonable belief that any juror misconduct occurred. Indeed, the proffered showing of juror misconduct was "`at best, speculation on the part of how the jurors might have arrived at their verdict.'" (People v. Wilson (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 839, 852.) Moreover, there was no indication that the trial court coerced the jury to reach a verdict following the jury's announcement that
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.
|
|