People v. McGhee, 17 Cal.5th 612

Background

Timothy Joseph McGhee, a high-ranking member of the Toonerville street gang, was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder and four counts of attempted murder after a trial involving gang-related shootings in Los Angeles from 1997 to 2001.
The jury found special circumstances: multiple murders and crimes committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang; the original penalty phase jury deadlocked, but a second jury imposed a death sentence.
The conviction was based largely on testimony from current/former gang members, many with criminal records or drug use, some of whom received benefits for their testimony or claimed police coaching.
During guilt phase deliberations, a juror (Juror No. 5) was discharged for alleged failure to deliberate and bias against police/prosecution, based mostly on other jurors' opinions and frustration about deadlock or disagreement.
The Supreme Court of California reviewed whether the discharge of Juror No. 5 was proper and ultimately reversed McGhee’s convictions and sentence due to the erroneous juror discharge.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Juror No. 5 was properly discharged for bias and failure to deliberate.	Juror No. 5 exhibited anti-police bias, refused to meaningfully deliberate, discredited all prosecution evidence based on speculation.	Juror No. 5 was diligently deliberating, skepticism was grounded in evidence, and removal was improper and based mainly on disagreement with other jurors.	The trial court erred: the record did not show refusal to deliberate or improper bias; other jurors’ frustrations/complaints did not satisfy legal grounds for removal.
Scope of trial court inquiry into alleged juror misconduct.	Court was justified in broad inquiry given jurors’ note signaling inability of Juror No. 5 to decide case fairly.	The inquiry was invasive, undermined deliberative process, and failed to focus on objective evidence of misconduct.	The court’s inquiry was overly broad and should have been more limited and focused; error compounded by failing to first question Juror No. 5.
Sufficiency of evidence for finding juror bias or refusal to deliberate.	Juror No. 5’s disbelief of all prosecution witnesses with criminal records and belief all were coached evidenced bias/refusal to deliberate.	Juror No. 5’s skepticism was tied to evidence (witness credibility, police coaching, incentives for testimony) and consistent with defense strategy.	No demonstrable reality of bias or refusal to deliberate; skepticism had basis in record and legal instructions permit such assessments.
Whether reversal is required due to erroneous juror discharge.	Discharge was within trial court’s discretion; any error was harmless.	Discharge violated McGhee’s right to jury trial/due process, requiring reversal.	Reversal required: improper discharge of deliberating juror violates defendant’s rights under California and federal law.

Key Cases Cited

People v. Armstrong, 1 Cal.5th 432 (Cal. 2016) (standard for removing a juror during deliberations)
People v. Barnwell, 41 Cal.4th 1038 (Cal. 2007) (demonstrable reality standard for juror removal)
People v. Cleveland, 25 Cal.4th 466 (Cal. 2001) (limited inquiry and high standard for juror discharge during deliberations)
People v. Allen and Johnson, 53 Cal.4th 60 (Cal. 2011) (court must distinguish between disagreement and failure to deliberate)
People v. Lomax, 49 Cal.4th 530 (Cal. 2010) (affirming removal of a non-participating juror)