Can a jury be found to have improperly read a newspaper article while deliberating a jury verdict?

In People v. Holloway, supra, 50 Cal.3d 1098, 269 Cal.Rptr. 530, 790 P.2d 1327, one juror improperly read a newspaper article during trial stating that the defendant had been on parole from prison for assaulting a woman with a hammer. This impropriety was not discovered until after the guilt phase verdicts. We noted that such misconduct gives rise to a presumption of prejudice, and discussed the significance of that presumption: " '[W]hen misconduct of jurors is shown, it is presumed to be injurious to defendant, unless the contrary appears.' [Citation.] We have long recognized the reason for this rule: 'A juror is not allowed to say: "I acknowledge to grave misconduct. I received evidence without the presence of the court, but those matters had no influence upon my mind when casting my vote in the jury-room." The law, in its wisdom, does not allow a juror to purge himself in that way.... "But, where ... without any fault of either party ..., a paper was communicated to the jury which might have influenced their minds, the testimony of the jurors is [not admissible] to show whether it did or did not influence their deliberations and decision. A juryman may testify to any facts bearing upon the [9 Cal.4th 652] question of the existence of the disturbing influence, but he cannot be permitted to testify how far that influence operated upon his mind." ' (People v. Stokes [ (1894) 103 Cal. 193, 196-197, 37 P. 207].) That principle is now embodied in Evidence Code section 1150." (People v. Holloway, supra, 50 Cal.3d at pp. 1108-1109, 269 Cal.Rptr. 530, 790 P.2d 1327, italics added; see also People v. Cooper (1991) 53 Cal.3d 771, 835-836, 281 Cal.Rptr. 90, 809 P.2d 865 ["When a person violates his oath as a juror, doubt is cast on that person's ability to otherwise perform his duties."].)

The defendant need not affirmatively prove the jury's deliberations were improperly affected by the misconduct, for that cannot be done under Evidence Code section 1150 and the authority cited in People v. Holloway, supra, 50 Cal.3d at pages 1108-1109, 269 Cal.Rptr. 530, 790 P.2d 1327. Therefore, " 'The presumption of prejudice is an evidentiary aid to those parties who are able to establish serious misconduct of a type likely to have had an effect on the verdict or which deprived the complaining party of thorough consideration of his case, yet who are unable to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that actual prejudice occurred. The law thus recognizes the substantial barrier to proof of prejudice which Evidence Code section 1150 erects, and it seeks to lower that barrier somewhat.' (Hasson v. Ford Motor Co. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 388, 416 [185 Cal.Rptr. 654, 650 P.2d 1171.] )" (Id. at p. 1109, 269 Cal.Rptr. 530, 790 P.2d 1327.)