9 Cal. App. 5th 1050
Cal. Ct. App.2017Background
- Defendant Tamonte Russell (and co-defendants) were charged with attempted murder, aggravated mayhem, torture, and assault with a deadly weapon; Russell was convicted of aggravated mayhem, torture, and assault but acquitted of attempted murder and sentenced to 7 years to life.
- Facts: after being ejected from a party, Russell and companions returned; an attack followed in which a victim (David) was severely beaten with a bat and suffered traumatic brain injury.
- Russell gave a recorded police interview admitting presence and that he had a bat for protection but denying participation in the assault.
- After trial defense counsel spoke with Juror No. 11 (TJ11) in a courthouse hallway; TJ11 reportedly said she thought unanimity was required only on count 1 and that Juror No. 6 brought internet-researched material and Biblical quotations into deliberations to persuade her.
- Defense moved under Code Civ. Proc. §§ 206, 237 for juror identifying information to investigate juror misconduct; the court notified jurors and most responded, but TJ11 did not reply to letters/phone calls despite multiple attempts.
- The trial court found TJ11’s silence, after repeated notice attempts, reasonably constituted a protest/unwillingness to be contacted and denied release of her contact information; it also found no credible evidence of juror misconduct and declined to subpoena TJ11. Judgment affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disclosure of juror identifying information under CCP §237 | People: TJ11's nonresponse can be construed as an objection; court may protect juror privacy | Russell: TJ11’s silence does not equal a “protest” and thus info must be released for misconduct investigation | Trial court did not abuse discretion; under totality silence after notice and repeated calls can be a protest/unwillingness to be contacted, so disclosure properly denied |
| Whether juror misconduct (outside influence, unanimity confusion) warranted disclosure/subpoena | People: no credible corroboration from other jurors; no evidence of outside influence or unanimity instruction error in deliberations | Russell: TJ11 reported misconduct and unanimity confusion; counsel needed contact info to pursue new-trial motion | Court found no credible evidence of misconduct; contacted jurors (two corroborating jurors denied misconduct); no basis to subpoena TJ11; defense declined to file new-trial motion |
| Admissibility of pre-Miranda statements (police interview) | People: statements admissible under applicable rules (not detailed in opinion excerpt) | Russell: trial court erred by denying motion to exclude pre-Miranda statements | Issue raised on appeal but not dispositive to reversal in opinion excerpt; conviction affirmed (claims rejected) |
| Jury verdict unanimity / oral declaration | People: verdicts were valid and properly recorded | Russell: no unanimous oral declaration of guilty jury verdict | Claim raised on appeal but rejected; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Tuggles, 179 Cal.App.4th 339 (discussing juror contact statutes and protections)
- Townsel v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.4th 1084 (juror refusal to speak ends inquiry; courts may shield jurors from unwanted contact)
- People v. Ferraez, 112 Cal.App.4th 925 (deference to trial court factual findings about juror disclosure protests)
- People v. Rhodes, 212 Cal.App.3d 541 (recognizing sensitivity of juror identifying information and competing policy interests)