People v. Venegas CA4/3

FACTS AND PROCEDRUAL HISTORY

Defendant admitted to the police he had intercourse with the victim but said it was consensual. Three days after the jury reached its verdict Juror No. 2 contacted defense counsel and said he would like to talk about the case. In response, defense counsel and Juror No. 2 met, in the presence of a defense investigator, who later prepared a written report summarizing the discussion. According to the relevant portions of the defense investigator’s report, Juror No. 2 told defense counsel: “[M]any of the Jurors questioned and discussed why [defendant] did not testify and that factored into their deliberations. He felt [defendant’s] testimony was important since the case was a ‘he said, she said’ situation. [Juror No. 2] and the other jurors felt they only heard the [victim’s] side of the story and had to base [defendant’s] side by what was written in the police report.” “Overall, [Juror No. 2] felt the big factor for him and the other jurors was that they would have liked to have seen what [defendant] had to say. The Jurors wanted to see [defendant] testify from the [witness] stand and discussed the fact that he did not. They concluded without his…