Rufo v. OJ Simpson - Right Of Publicity

Page 34
otherwise affiliated with any of the law enforcement agencies listed
above
[which included District Attorney] or any other law enforcement
organization"
Upon questioning by the court the juror stated she had inadvertently
answered no
while rushing to complete the questionnaire, and that she should have
answered
yes and disclosed her daughter's employer. The juror stated she had not
met
Christopher Darden.
Simpson moved for a mistrial on the ground the juror had concealed
material
information on voir dire that if disclosed would have led the defense
to
peremptorily excuse her. The trial court denied a mistrial but removed
juror
number 7 from the jury on the ground her answer to a clear and
unequivocal
question on the questionnaire omitted material information. The court
then
replaced her with an alternate and instructed the jurors to disregard
prior
deliberations and begin their deliberations anew. Thus the jury which
rendered
the verdict, after three days of new deliberations, did not include the
offending juror number 7.
Simpson contends the court should have [**76] granted a mistrial
instead of
simply removing the juror. He bases this argument on nothing more than
the legal
rule that a juror's concealment of material information on voir dire is
serious
misconduct which raises a "presumption of prejudice." ( Hasson v. Ford
Motor Co.
(1982) 32 Cal. 3d 388, 416, 185 Cal. Rptr. 654, 650 P.2d 1171; In re
Hitchings
(1993) 6 Cal. 4th 97, 119, 860 P.2d 466; People v. Blackwell (1987) 191
Cal.
App. 3d 925, 929, 236 Cal. Rptr. 803; People v. Diaz (1984) 152 Cal.
App. 3d
926, 934, 200 Cal. Rptr. 77.) Simpson did not contend nor produce any
evidence,
in either his motion for mistrial or subsequent motion for a new trial,
that
PAGE 28
86 Cal. App. 4th 573, *612; 2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 41, **76;
103 Cal. Rptr. 2d 492, ***519; 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Service 759
juror number 7 communicated to the other jurors any outside information
or
otherwise committed any deliberative misconduct. He relies solely on
the legal
presumption of prejudice.