State of Arizona v. Knute Eckhard Kolmann, 367 P.3d 61

In 2010 a jury convicted Knute Kolmann of multiple counts of sexual exploitation of a minor; he received consecutive sentences totaling 155 years. The convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
On day six of trial a juror (L.M.) told the judge she “couldn’t judge anybody” and asked to be excused; the judge cautioned her not to discuss deliberations, then excused her and replaced her with an alternate over no counsel objection.
The court instructed the remaining jurors to involve the alternate and to “start over again” to some extent; the jury reconvened five days later, deliberated ~70 minutes, and returned guilty verdicts.
In 2013 L.M. executed an affidavit stating she sought dismissal because she was the lone juror not convinced of guilt and feared causing a hung jury; she said another juror advised her how to request removal.
Kolmann filed a Rule 32 petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel and juror misconduct; the trial court summarily dismissed the petition and the court of appeals denied relief. The Arizona Supreme Court granted review and affirmed.

Issue	Kolmann's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Waiver of defendant’s presence during juror-substitution proceedings	Trial counsel improperly waived Kolmann’s Sixth Amendment right to be present	Counsel may waive presence; Kolmann shows no prejudice from absence	No colorable claim—no prejudice shown; summary dismissal affirmed
Counsel failed to question or object to excusal of juror L.M.	Counsel should have probed L.M.; she would have revealed she was a putative lone holdout and thus dismissal was improper	Judge properly cautioned against probing deliberations; L.M. expressed inability to judge, authorizing excusal under Rule 18.5(h)	No ineffective assistance—counsel’s choice was reasonable and excusal was authorized
Failure to request explicit instruction that jury "begin deliberations anew" after alternate joined	Counsel should have sought a formal Rule 18.5(h) instruction; appellate counsel should have raised the issue	Court substantially conveyed need to restart deliberations; omission did not prejudice verdict	No prejudice shown; counsel not ineffective; appellate counsel not ineffective
Juror misconduct (L.M.’s nondisclosure and another juror’s advice)	L.M. concealed reasons; another juror coached her to seek dismissal to remove a holdout — warrants new trial	L.M. candidly said she couldn’t judge anyone; advice alone didn’t prejudice; juror was properly excused	Not a colorable claim or not prejudicial; defendant received an impartial unanimous jury

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance two-prong test)
Hinton v. Alabama, 134 S. Ct. 1081 (clarifying deficiency and prejudice principles under Strickland)
State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562 (Arizona standard for stating colorable Rule 32 claim)
State v. Guytan, 192 Ariz. 514 (discussion of jury-restart instruction and substitution concerns)
Claudio v. Snyder, 68 F.3d 1573 (failure to expressly instruct to begin anew not always dispositive)
United States v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606 (importance of secrecy of jury deliberations)