50 Cal.App.5th 71
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Richard DeHoyos was convicted at a second trial in 1993 of kidnapping, rape, and murder and sentenced to death; posttrial proceedings raised juror contact issues.
- In 2000 the trial court issued a no-contact order (citing Townsel) restricting any counsel contact with jurors absent court approval; juror names were part of the appellate record but other juror information was treated as confidential.
- Trial counsel repeatedly sought permission to contact jurors (2011, 2016); the trial court denied relief as a fishing expedition and required a showing of juror misconduct or good cause before permitting contact.
- DeHoyos sought relief from this court; the California Supreme Court granted review and directed this court to issue an alternative writ requiring the trial court either to permit contact with three jurors identified by DeHoyos (who had previously spoken with defense investigators) or to show cause.
- This Court held the trial court did not abuse its power in issuing a gatekeeper no-contact order generally, but it did abuse its gatekeeper role by refusing even to ask the three identified jurors whether they currently consented to be interviewed.
- Remedy: grant writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its denial, hold a hearing, adopt a neutral procedure to contact the three jurors, and ascertain whether they consent to interviews (if a juror consents, counsel may interview; if not, no further action as to that juror).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. May a trial court issue a no-contact order posttrial? | DeHoyos: no blanket prohibition; juror consent governs per statute. | People/Superior Court: court has inherent gatekeeper power to protect juror privacy and safety (Townsel). | The court: Trial courts may issue gatekeeper no-contact orders under their inherent power; such orders are not per se invalid. |
| 2. Can the court require a showing of juror misconduct or "good cause" before allowing contact? | DeHoyos: section 206 makes juror consent dispositive; court cannot demand a higher showing to interview a consenting juror. | People/Superior Court: require good cause to avoid intrusive contacts long after trial. | The court: Court may supervise initial contact but may not demand good cause to permit interview if the juror consents; gatekeeper must ask jurors whether they consent. |
| 3. Was the trial court justified in refusing to contact three jurors who previously agreed to speak in 1993? | DeHoyos: trial court should at minimum ascertain present willingness of those three jurors to be interviewed. | People/Superior Court: past consent is stale; court worried contacts would be intrusive after long repose. | The court: Trial court erred by refusing even to inquire; it must use a neutral procedure to ask the three jurors whether they now consent. |
| 4. Appropriate remedy for the error? | DeHoyos: order permitting contact with the three jurors or a hearing to effectuate it. | People/Superior Court: maintain protective order unless jurors affirmatively consent after a court-controlled process. | The court: Grant writ of mandate; vacate denial and direct trial court to hold a hearing to establish a neutral process to contact the three jurors and ascertain consent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Townsel v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.4th 1084 (1999) (trial court has inherent gatekeeper power to protect juror privacy and to ensure juror contact is consensual and reasonable)
- People v. Cox, 53 Cal.3d 618 (1991) (upholding trial-court supervision of posttrial juror communications where juror anxiety and safety concerns arose)
- People v. Rhodes, 212 Cal.App.3d 541 (1989) (applied balancing test pre-statutory regime to protect juror privacy when disclosing juror identifying information)