What is the test for a motion for a new trial on the basis of juror misconduct?

As the trial court recognized, a motion for new trial on the basis of juror misconduct is evaluated by way of a three-step analysis. First, the court must "determine whether the affidavits supporting the motion are admissible." (People v. Dorsey (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 694, 703.) Second, "[i]f the evidence is admissible, the trial court must determine whether the facts establish misconduct." (Ibid.) Third, "assuming misconduct, the trial court must determine whether the misconduct was prejudicial." (Id. at pp. 703-704.)

Here, there is no issue as to the admissibility, in limited part, of the juror declaration submitted in support of his motion. It is well-established that discussion of a defendant's failure to testify is misconduct. (People v. Leonard (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1370, 1426 (Leonard).) Accordingly, the sole issue on appeal is the third prong of the analysiswhether the misconduct was prejudicial to the defendant. " ' "Whether

Page 10