 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Singh2/10/2003
here, from his testimony and the motion, are some fairly ambiguous statements, snippets of conversation he may have overheard, discussion of newspaper articles. And, certainly, discussing the case outside of the jury room or discussing extraneous matters during deliberations do present a rebuttable presumption of misconduct. But it seems to me that even that is rebutted. [ ] The articles were revealed to the court, and I believe jurors indicated that their judgments weren't going to be affected by them. There's no showing as to whether the articles themselves are inherently prejudicial. [ ] No attempt has been made to contact the jurors. No explanation, no satisfactory explanation has been given as to why the allegations of misconduct weren't presented earlier. [ ] Considering the policy to safeguard the jurors' privacy it seems to me the defendant has failed to make a prima facie showing to warrant turning over their personal records. [ ] Accordingly, the motion is denied."
Later, on June 12, 2001, at the hearing on the appellant's new trial motion, defense counsel renounced any issue with regard to possible juror misconduct. He informed the court: "As the court is aware, sentencing and motion for new trial have dragged on for quite some time largely because we were investigating jury conduct with respect to their activities during the course of the guilt phase of this case, the penalty phase being moot. We conducted that investigation and my colleague Mr. Humphrey spoke with members of the jury with regard to some of the issues that we had earlier discussed with the court and with counsel. [ ] Based upon the information provided to me by Mr. Humphrey as related to him by the jury, we have determined that our motion for new trial should be based not upon jury misconduct but upon the issue of the statement that was taken from my client at his home on the day of his arrest . . . ."
Thus, appellant's trial counsel stated on the record that he had been able to locate and speak with the jurors, and there was no jury misconduct issue to be raised. Counsel then proceeded to argue another ground for new trial which involved the unrelated issue of whether appellant was illegally detained at the time he made damaging statements to the police, an issue which appellant does not renew on appeal. The question of whether to give appellant access to the jurors to investigate possible jury misconduct was therefore both waived and rendered moot in the lower court. (See People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 999-1000.) Even if we were to find error in the trial court's ruling denying access to the juror information, which we have not, any such error would be harmless on this record. (Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d at p. 836)
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
We concur.
JONES, P.J.
SIMONS, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|