California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Ortega, A131244 (Cal. App. 2012):
the trial court, in its discretion, concludes that an evidentiary hearing is necessary to resolve materially disputed issues of fact.' [] Based on the foregoing, the court finds that it has no admissible evidence of jury misconduct. And I do exercise my discretion by disallowing an evidentiary hearing on the matter. No juror has submitted a declaration on the matter and the court will not compel any juror to come to court under this situation. [] Additionally, under [People v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680, 727], the court finds that it has nothing more than a hearsay statement of an expression of wonderment and curiosity. And that alone is not sufficient. Therefore, the motion for new trial is denied."
2. Analysis
" 'When a party seeks a new trial based upon jury misconduct, a court must undertake a three-step inquiry. The court must first determine whether the affidavits supporting the motion are admissible. (See Evid. Code, 1150, subd. (a).)18 If the evidence is admissible, the court must then consider whether the facts establish misconduct. [Citation.] Finally, assuming misconduct, the court must determine whether the misconduct was prejudicial. [Citations.]' " (People v. Bryant (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1457, 1467.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.