Criminal Appeal

Cal. Supremes Issue OSC in Capital Habeas

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court issued an order show cause in a capital habeas case presenting questions regarding multiple instances of juror misconduct, ranging from false statements in voir dire to watching a movie called "American Me" as background to introducing outside-the-record information during deblierations that the defendant had committed another killing. The case is In re Maurice Boyette, no. S092356.

The Court affirmed Boyette's conviction and sentence on direct review in 2002 in People v. Boyette, no. S032736.

Boyette is represented by former State Public Defender Lynne Coffin.

Upon Reviewing Grant of New Trial Motion, Reviewing Court Examines Determination that Juror Misconduct Was Prejudicial for Abuse of Discretion. People v. Ault, no. S119948 (Cal.Supreme Court, Aug. 16, 2004).

Holding: "[W]hen a trial court, after examining all the relevant circumstances, grants a new trial in a criminal case on grounds that proven misconduct was prejudicial, that determination is not subject to independent or de novo review on appeal, but may be affirmed unless it constituted an abuse of discretion."

Justice Baxter authored the six-judge majority opinion. Justice Brown dissented, concluding the result is inconsistent with decisions holdings that de novo review applies to: (1) defense appeals of denials of new trial motions, (2) prosecution appeals of new tiral motion orders findings of error, (3) prosecution appeals of orders granting writs of habeas corpus for jury misconduct.

No Federal Habeas Relief Based on California Juror-Snitch Instruction (CALJIC No. 17.41.1). Brewer v. Hall, no. 03-55974 (9th Cir., Aug. 4, 2004).

Panel: T.G. Nelson, Tashima, Fisher (author)

We're From the Govenrment and We're Here to Help: Glaring Government Agents Intimidate Jurors. U.S. v. Rutherford, no. 03-10158 (9th Cir., June 10, 2004).

Ninth Circuit remands for further proceedings to determine whether jury was tainted:

[The defendants] also assert that the jury was prejudiced because a large number of IRS and government agents sat directly behind the prosecution table throughout the trial and glared at the jurors, intimidating them, and causing some of the jurors to fear that if they acquitted the Rutherfords, the IRS might retaliate against them. In this regard, the Rutherfords assert that the district court improperly restricted the scope of the evidentiary hearing and impeded their ability to make a prima facie showing that the jurors were adversely influenced by the government agents’ conduct. The Rutherfords’ more fundamental contention, however, is that the district court erred in finding that they must prove that the agents “intended” to influence the jurors. According to the Rutherfords, they need show only that the agents’ conduct created a risk that the verdict might be influenced, regardless of the government’s motive. On the latter two points, we agree with the Rutherfords. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s ruling, and remand for further proceedings.

Jury's Receipt of 24 Exhibits Not Admitted At Trial Did Not Require New Trial
U.S. v. Prime, no. 02-30375 (9th Cir. Apr. 16, 2004)

Holdings: (1) there was no abuse of discretion in allowing the testimony of an expert handwriting analyst; (2) no abuse of discretion in denying motions to substitute appointed counsel and to replace appointed counsel with retained counsel (a previous substitution of appointed counsel had been granted; timeliness was a problem for these subsequent requests); and (3) the jury’s mistaken receipt of 24 unadmitted exhibits was not prejudicial.

Panel: Before: Stephen S. Trott (author), Richard A. Paez, and Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judges.

Ninth Circuit Grants Writ Based on Juror Contact With Testifying Detective.
Case: Caliendo v. Warden, no. 01-56946 (9th Cir. Apr. 5, 2004)
Proceeding: Appeal of denial of state prisoner's habeas corpus petition.

Holding: California appellate court failed to presume prejudice from juror misconduct ("A detective who provided testimony that was crucial to the prosecution’s case had a twenty-minute conversation, factually unrelated to the trial, with three jurors in the hallway during a break in deliberations.") This rendered decision contrary to Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140
(1892). Reviewing the prejudicial effect of the misconduct de novo, the court concluded the prosecution failed to show it was harmless.

Panel: Cynthia Holcomb Hall (author), Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, and M. Margaret McKeown. (Not your most criminal defendant friendly panel, but relief granted nevertheless!)

4-3 Affirmance in Capital Case

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court affirmed another death sentence in a 4-3 decision authored by Justice Janice Rogers Brown. Justice Joyce Kennard and Justice Carlos R. Moreno each wrote dissenting opinions calling for the reversal of the defendant's death sentence. The court unanimously agreed that two jurors had committed misconduct during the penalty phase of the trial by consulting their pastors and reading bible passages. Unlike the majority, the dissenters contended that this misconduct was prejudicial. Most unusually, Chief Justice Ronald George joined both dissents. He rarely dissents and he rarely votes against the prosecution.

The case was People v. Danks, no. S032146.