191 Cal. App. 4th 1474
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Juror No. 2 conducted an at-home broomstick experiment simulating shooting from a car during deliberations.
- The experiment was conducted outside the courtroom, without judicial oversight or cross-examination.
- Juror No. 2 reported the experiment and its results to fellow jurors, influencing deliberations on Vigil's liability.
- Vigil and Latham were charged with shooting at inhabited dwellings with a gang enhancement; Latham faced an additional count and did not prevail.
- The trial court admitted the juror misconduct evidence, but denied a new trial, finding the misconduct not prejudicial.
- The appellate court reversed Vigil’s conviction for prejudicial juror misconduct and affirmed Latham’s conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Juror No. 2’s home experiment constitute misconduct? | Vigil: misconduct occurred and was prejudicial. | People: the experiment fell within common experience and was not prejudicial. | Yes, misconduct occurred and was prejudicial. |
| Was the misconduct prejudicial to Vigil’s conviction? | Juror No. 2’s report created new evidence and eased the burden on the prosecution. | No prejudicial impact; evidence relied on trial facts. | Prejudice established; reversal warranted for Vigil. |
| What is the proper remedy for the juror misconduct? | New trial should be denied if no prejudice. | New trial appropriate to cure prejudice. | Reverse Vigil’s judgment and grant new trial; affirm Latham. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Conkling, 111 Cal. 616 (Cal. 1896) (out-of-court juror experimentation prejudicial where it creates new evidence)
- Bell v. State of California, 63 Cal.App.4th 919 (Cal. App. 1998) (recreation of events by juror can be misconduct if outside admitted evidence)
- People v. Castro, 184 Cal.App.3d 849 (Cal. App. 1986) (juror binoculars reenactment outside evidence, prejudicial)
- People v. Collins, 49 Cal.4th 175 (Cal. 2010) (distinguishes proper evaluation of admitted evidence from new extraneous evidence)
- People v. Cumpian, 1 Cal.App.4th 307 (Cal. App. 1991) (outside influences or extrinsic evidence permeating deliberations are prejudicial)
- People v. Nesler, 16 Cal.4th 561 (Cal. 1997) (prejudice assessment focuses on whether impartiality was compromised)
- People v. Miranda, 44 Cal.3d 57 (Cal. 1987) (presumption of prejudice in jury misconduct; requires rebuttal by record)
- People v. Sanchez, 62 Cal.App.4th 460 (Cal. App. 1998) (three-part inquiry for new trial on jury misconduct)