Cissna

People v. Cissna

Caution
106 Cal. Rptr. 3d 54·182 Cal. App. 4th 1105·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 412
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 26, 2010No. D053464California7,435 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Haller, J.

The right to a trial by jury is guaranteed by the state and federal Constitutions and is a cornerstone of our legal system. We entrust to 12 jurors the solemn task of judging the credibility of witnesses, evaluating the significance of the evidence, and ultimately determining whether a defendant in a criminal trial is guilty.

*1111 To maintain the integrity of the process, potential jurors are screened for bias through the voir dire process. Those selected take an oath to follow court instructions designed to protect the deliberative process, eliminate outside influences, and generate a decision based solely on the evidence presented at trial. Jurors are told that to ensure both sides receive a fair trial, they are not to discuss the case with anyone and that deliberations must occur only in the jury room.

Here, a juror ignored these admonitions and violated his sworn duties by speaking on a daily basis about the merits of the case with his nonjuror Mend. After defendant was found guilty, he learned of this juror misconduct and moved for a new Mal. The prosecutor agreed the juror’s conduct constituted misconduct and created a presumption of prejudice, but argued the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.