Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...

(18RT 4450:12-14) or her mother (18RT 4452:2-9). Juror No. 10 said she made a
gesture to her friend indicating her vote and that her friend made a statement about
the death penalty, but the record is silent as to the content of the friend's
statement. And, the record is silent as to the effect, if any, of the friend's
statement upon Juror No. 10. (18RT 4450:10-28 to 4451:1-8.)
Respondent's factual construction that appellant exposed the entire jury to
extrinsic matters is manifestly unsupported by the record and must be rejected.
Respondent also asserts that after Juror No. 10 exposed the death penalty
beliefs of her mother and friend to the jury, the jury changed its unanimous
agreement for the death penalty to a 10-2 impasse for the death penalty. (RB 244.)
The record does not support respondent's claimed version of events.
Instead, the record shows that Juror No. 10 told the court they had reached a
verdict late Wednesday (18RT 4448:4-6) and that she told her friend the jury was
going to turn in the verdict the next morning (18RT 4450:1-9). The record also
shows that there was consensus among the court and all counsel that the jury had,
in the words of the prosecutor, come "to some sort of decision.") (18RT 4453:1­
2.) Counsel for Nunez also concluded that the jury may have reached a decision
and asked the court to seek clarification on this point. (18RT 4453-4454.)
Counsel for appellant agreed, noting that Juror No. 10 had said several times in the
course ofthe hearing that the jury had reached a verdict: 4 (18RT 4454-4455.)
At this point, the court ruled there was no verdict and further ruled Juror
No. 10 had committed misconduct, which required her removal from the jury.
(18RT 4455-4456.) Thereafter, both defense counsel periodically revisited the
matter and reiterated that Juror No. 10's description of events very much
suggested the jury had reached a verdict, that the verdict might have been an
14 The record reveals that the jury resumed its deliberations at 9:30 a.m. the
Thursday morning (following the Wednesday afternoon Juror No. 10 said the jury
had reached a verdict) and that at 10:10 a.m. the jury foreman reported the jury
was at a 10-2 impasse on the penalty verdict. (38CT 11132; 18RT 4443; AOB
262-263.)
135