CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL LAW: INVESTIGATING JUROR MISCONDUCT
INVESTIGATION INTO JUROR MISCONDUCT
The law governing investigation of juror misconduct is very poorly understood, as this case illustrates. California Code of Civil Procedure secs. 206 and 237 provide that IF you seek disclosure of juror identification information, the court is supposed to notify the jurors and withhold the information IF the jurors object. Remember, though, that you can interview jurors so long as you aren't seeking disclosure of juror information under 206 or 237, with the restriction that if you talk to them more than 24 hours after verdict, you must tell them (among other things) of their absolute right
not to talk with you. The jurors here objected to disclosure, so the court denied disclosure of juror information. Fine.
But the judge then terminated the inquiry into juror misconduct. The Court of Appeal rules that this was wrong. Sure, disclosure to counsel is to be denied if the jurors object. But that doesn't eliminate the duty of the COURT to conduct an inquiry into juror misconduct if there's some basis to believe that such misconduct occurred. The judge here denied disclosure, then refused to conduct any inquiry himself. Wrong.
The defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial compels judicial inquiry into claims of juror misconduct, even if, after notification, the jurors don't want any disclosure of
their identities to the lawyers.
People v. Tuggles; 2009 DJ DAR 15464; DJ, 10/30/09; C/A 3rd
