People v. Weatherton
59 Cal. 4th 589
| Cal. | 2014Background
- Defendant Fred Weatherton was convicted by a jury of robbery, attempted murder, and two counts of first degree murder with special circumstances; the jury returned a death verdict.
- Evidence at trial included eyewitness testimony by Nelva Bell (who survived being shot and identified defendant in a photo lineup), shoeprint tracking, and ballistics linking recovered fragments to the same gun.
- After the guilty verdict, allegations surfaced that Juror No. 1 (P.P.) and others had discussed the case and expressed views on punishment before formal deliberations began.
- Multiple jurors and alternates testified at hearings that P.P. repeatedly said he believed the defendant was guilty, would vote guilty on initial ballots (and in some accounts regardless), championed Bell’s testimony, and discussed the death penalty.
- The trial court found P.P. committed "serious misconduct" but denied a new trial, concluding there was not a substantial likelihood of actual bias; the Supreme Court of California reversed, finding the misconduct created a substantial likelihood of actual bias and required reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Weatherton) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juror misconduct (premature discussions, prejudgment) during guilt phase requires reversal | Misconduct did not show a substantial likelihood of bias; remaining jurors deliberated and verdict stands | P.P. prejudged guilt, lobbied other jurors, and expressed views on death penalty before deliberations, creating presumed prejudice | Reversed: misconduct created a substantial likelihood of actual bias requiring reversal |
| Proper allocation of burden when juror misconduct is proved | Prosecutor argued no evidence misconduct affected verdict; court should assess actual bias | Defendant argued presumption of prejudice arises and People must rebut to show no substantial likelihood of bias | Court held once misconduct is proved, prejudice is presumed and prosecution must rebut; People failed to meet burden |
| Admissibility and process for probing juror misconduct (use of juror testimony, Fifth Amendment concerns) | Court followed procedures (advising jurors, granting use immunity) and permitted inquiry | Defendant argued deeper inquiry and resolution before penalty phase was prudent | Court reversed on prejudice grounds and did not rule on procedural propriety but noted the court s unusual handling risked chilling juror testimony |
| Whether structural error or harmless-error analysis applies | People implicitly urged harmlessness given strength of evidence | Defendant argued structural defect (biased juror) compels reversal without harmless-error inquiry | Court treated biased juror as structural defect: reversal required regardless of weight of evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Nesler, 16 Cal.4th 561 (constitutional right to trial by unbiased jurors; biased adjudicator compels reversal)
- People v. Holloway, 50 Cal.3d 1098 (a single improperly influenced juror can invalidate a conviction)
- In re Hamilton, 20 Cal.4th 273 (presumption of prejudice arises from juror misconduct; prosecution must rebut no substantial likelihood of actual bias)
- People v. Tafoya, 42 Cal.4th 147 (appellate review of juror misconduct is mixed question of law and fact)
- People v. Brown, 61 Cal.App.3d 476 (prejudgment by juror is serious misconduct)
- Grobeson v. City of Los Angeles, 190 Cal.App.4th 778 (premature fixed opinions by decisionmakers require no inference to show prejudgment)
- Juror Number One v. Superior Court, 206 Cal.App.4th 854 (discussion of Fifth Amendment considerations when probing juror misconduct)
- People v. Tuggles, 179 Cal.App.4th 339 (trial court must conduct hearing to determine truth of juror misconduct allegations)