California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Rosales, E055105 (Cal. App. 2013):
cannot stand if even a single juror has been improperly influenced.' [Citations.]"' [Citation.]" (People v. Cissna (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1105, 1123.)
"'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 under Evidence Code section 1150, subdivision (a).' [Citation.] '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.]' [Citation.] [] . . . [] 'In determining misconduct, "[w]e accept the trial court's credibility determinations and findings on questions of historical fact if supported by substantial evidence." [Citation.]' [Citation.] We review independently whether those facts constitute misconduct. [Citation.]" (People v. Engstrom (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 174, 182-183.)
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.