Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...
Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...
Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
foreperson had authored the written note in question in which the foreperson<br />
informed the court (1) the jury was at an impasse and, in a subsequent addendum<br />
written some minutes later, (2) that Juror No. 10 had spoken with her mother.<br />
(18RT 4443:9-28 to 4444:1-17.) As to Juror No. 10's conversation with her<br />
mother, the foreperson said: "She admitted to us right at the table, and it was<br />
brought to my attention as we left - the other jurors brought it to my attention <br />
and said they didn't think that was right and -" (18RT 4444:3-12.) The trial<br />
court made no further inquiry <strong>of</strong> the foreperson regarding Juror No. 10's<br />
statements.<br />
As to respondent's assertion that Juror No. 10 "violated a court order for<br />
the third time by intentionally informing the other jurors that her mother and her<br />
friend 'sided with her doubts' as to the death penalty," the record does not support<br />
that conclusion. Juror No. 10 reported that she did not discuss her views about the<br />
issues or about the death penalty with her mother. In colloquy with the court, the<br />
foreperson only said, "she admitted to us right at the table," that she had talked to<br />
her mother. (l8RT 4444:6.)<br />
The foreperson did not report that the jurors had been exposed to the<br />
opinions <strong>of</strong> mother or friend and it would appear neither court nor counsel,<br />
including the prosecutor, came away from the hearing with the foreperson<br />
sufficiently concerned about the jury's exposure to extrinsic matters to request or<br />
hold a hearing with the other jurors or to have the jury admonished about<br />
consideration <strong>of</strong> extrinsic matters introduced by Juror No. 10. (See, e.g., court's<br />
admonition to jury after replacement <strong>of</strong>Juror No. 10; 18RT 4470.)<br />
Beyond the foreperson's written comment that Juror No. 10 reported that<br />
her friend and mother had "sided with her doubts," the record is silent as to any<br />
specific comments by Juror No. 10 that might have led to the foreperson's written<br />
statement.<br />
On the other hand, the record does show that Juror No. 10 expressly<br />
reported that she did not talk about her concerns about the case with her friend<br />
134