Enrique Godoy v. Marion Spearman, 861 F.3d 956

Enrique Godoy was convicted of second-degree murder; after trial he alleged juror misconduct: Juror 10 texted a "judge friend" during the trial and relayed that person’s responses to the jury.
Alternate juror N.L. submitted an uncontested declaration describing continuous communications via a Blackberry and that Juror 10 disclosed the judge-friend’s comments to the jury.
At a post-trial hearing the trial court refused live juror testimony (insisting on sworn declarations) and ultimately denied a new trial; the prosecutor never put on evidence rebutting N.L.’s declaration.
The California Court of Appeal found N.L.’s declaration established a rebuttable presumption of prejudice but nonetheless concluded the declaration itself rebutted the presumption and denied an evidentiary hearing (requiring instead a showing of a "strong possibility" of prejudice).
Godoy sought federal habeas relief; the Ninth Circuit en banc reversed, holding the state court contravened clearly established Supreme Court law (Mattox/Remmer) and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Juror 10’s contacts prejudiced the verdict.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether juror’s communications with a judge-like outsider triggered a presumption of prejudice	Godoy: N.L.’s declaration showed continuous outside contact about the case that posed a credible risk of influencing the verdict, so presumption attaches	State: communications were procedural and harmless; N.L.’s declaration did not show prejudice	Court: Presumption of prejudice attached—contact with a judge-friend about the case raised a credible risk of influence
Who bears the burden once presumption attaches	Godoy: once presumption is triggered, the state must prove harmlessness	State/CA Ct. App.: treated the declaration as both creating and rebutting the presumption (putting burden on Godoy)	Court: Remmer/Mattox require the heavy burden on the state to rebut; the CA court erred by placing burden on Godoy and by using the same statement to rebut the presumption
Whether an evidentiary hearing was required	Godoy: Remmer requires a hearing when presumption attaches and the record is unclear as to prejudice	State: no hearing necessary absent a strong showing of possible prejudice	Court: Remmer requires a hearing when prejudice is unclear; CA court’s "strong possibility" standard was incorrect—remand for hearing ordered

Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140 (establishes that private communications possibly prejudicial to a defendant invalidate a verdict unless harmlessness is shown)
Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (holds that private juror contact is presumptively prejudicial and places heavy burden on the government to prove harmlessness; mandates a hearing)
Remmer v. United States (Remmer II), 350 U.S. 377 (reaffirms need for full hearing where the record is insufficient to show harmlessness)
Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (discussed in relation to scope of Mattox/Remmer; does not displace them)
Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 855 (cited re: limitations on live juror testimony and the no-impeachment rule)