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.
misconduct as talking with her mother and her friend, this ex post facto statement<br />
<strong>of</strong>ruling was revisionist in that the court now identified the misconduct as: "Juror<br />
No. 10 has been influenced by outside sources." The court stated:<br />
[]The court then ruled and again rules and clarifies as follows: Last<br />
Friday, June 30, the year 2000, in excusing Juror No. 10 for<br />
misconduct, the court based on her demeanor and statements, found<br />
good cause to discharge the juror, and the juror's conduct raised a<br />
presumption <strong>of</strong> prejudice similar to those found in People vs.<br />
Daniels. Moreover, the court additionally found that the jury<br />
impasse at 10 to 2, coupled with Juror No. 10 being influenced by<br />
outside sources, her mother and friend, precluded this court from<br />
<strong>of</strong>fering to have Juror No. 10 continue to deliberate with the other<br />
11 jurors after <strong>of</strong>fering more instruction or readbacks.<br />
Effectively, Juror No. 10 tied this court's hands from <strong>of</strong>fering<br />
further instructions as recommended by the <strong>California</strong> and U.S.<br />
Supreme Court in People vs. Keenan, 46 Ca1.3d 478, 534,<br />
particularly the footnote 27, and Lowenfleld vs. Phelps, 484 U.S.<br />
231, a 1988 Supreme Court case, or readbacks to see if the jurors<br />
need more information to continue to deliberate because Juror No.<br />
10 has been influenced by outside sources.<br />
The court, exercising its discretion upon the evidence received indicating<br />
juror misconduct, excused Juror No. 10 and replaced her with Alternate No.2.<br />
(18RT 4473:5-27; emphasis added.)<br />
3. The Trial Court's Reasons For Removing Juror No. 10 Are Not<br />
Established To A Demonstrable Reality<br />
Here, the trial court stated it relied upon Juror No. 10's demeanor,<br />
statements, discussions with her mother and friend, and the fact she had been<br />
influenced by others.<br />
As to the juror's demeanor, beyond its generalized reference to the juror's<br />
demeanor, the court made no specific finding regarding demeanor evidence. And,<br />
the record is otherwise silent regarding the juror's demeanor. Neither defense<br />
counsel, nor the court, nor the prosecutor commented about the juror's demeanor.<br />
140