People v. Allen and Johnson
133 Cal. Rptr. 3d 548
| Cal. | 2011Background
- A jury convicted Michael Allen and Cleamon Johnson of first-degree murders with multiple-murder special circumstances; both were sentenced to death.
- During guilt phase deliberations, Juror No. 11 allegedly prejudged the case; foreperson and Juror No. 4 raised concerns and an inquiry followed.
- The court discharged Juror No. 11 for having prejudged the case and for relying on evidence not in the record, and seated an alternate.
- The reconstituted jury returned guilty verdicts and death verdicts for both defendants after beginning deliberations anew.
- The court also found fault with a separate meeting involving the foreperson and Juror No. 4, but did not discharge them.
- On appeal, defendants challenged the discharge of Juror No. 11 as an abuse of discretion and raised related issues about the investigation and reliance on outside facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Juror No. 11 properly discharged for prejudgment? | People contends the court acted within discretion due to prejudgment evidence. | Allen/Johnson argue the discharge exceeded discretion and violated due process. | Discharge was an abuse of discretion; reversal required. |
| Was the court's interviewing of all jurors and sua sponte investigation proper? | People defend broad inquiry as necessary to assess misconduct. | Allen/Johnson contend excessive, intrusive interviewing was improper. | Inquiry was not an abuse of discretion; permissible under authorities cited. |
| Did reliance on Juror No. 11's timecard remark on Hispanics constitute misconduct warranting discharge? | People treated as basis to discharge due to reliance on outside information. | Allen/Johnson argue remark was based on life experience, not improper outside evidence. | Discharge on this basis was improper; prejudgment ground invalid; reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Wilson, 44 Cal.4th 758 (2008) (due process safeguards and juror independence in discharge)
- People v. Lomax, 49 Cal.4th 530 (2010) (heightened review for juror discharge; demonstrable reality standard)
- People v. Barnwell, 41 Cal.4th 1038 (2007) (pre-deliberation bias and need to address potential misconduct)
- People v. Ledesma, 39 Cal.4th 641 (2006) (mind remains open to evidence; not unlawful contemplation of case during trial)
- People v. Steele, 27 Cal.4th 1230 (2002) (expertise of jurors; permissible to consider life experience within limits)
- People v. Cleveland, 25 Cal.4th 466 (2001) (juror misconduct and limits on discharge when deliberations not shown to be impossible)
- Grobeson v. City of Los Angeles, 190 Cal.App.4th 778 (2010) (midtrial statements indicating prejudgment; assessment of credibility varies)
- People v. Fauber, 2 Cal.4th 792 (1992) (distinction between outside facts and life experience in evaluating evidence)
- People v. Yeoman, 31 Cal.4th 93 (2003) (jurors referencing personal experiences in deliberations permissible)