Page 1
C.A. Affirms Conviction of Man Whose Son Died as Result of ‘Shaken Baby Syndrome’
Majority, in Opinion by Wiley, Says Judge Properly Declined to Unseal Names of Jurors; Stratton Disagrees
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Court of Appeal for this district yesterday affirmed the conviction of a man for assaulting his four-month old son resulting in his death and inflicting grievous bodily injury on the boy’s twin sister, with the majority holding that the judge did not abuse his discretion in declining to reveal the identities of the jurors so that defense lawyers could investigate whether misconduct tainted the verdict.
Justice John Shepard Wiley Jr. authored the majority opinion, in which San Diego Superior Court Judge Albert T. Harutunian III, sitting on assignment, joined. Presiding Justice Maria E. Stratton dissented on the issue of revealing the jurors’ names.
The unpublished opinions came in the case of Brandon Keion Dozier, whose son died in the hospital the day after being brought there, with the cause being what is commonly referred to as “shaken baby syndrome”—though Wiley noted that “abusive head trauma” appears to be “the more current and inclusive term.”
Repeated Admonishments
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mike Camacho repeatedly admonished the jury during the trial not to discuss the case among themselves, after the defense lawyer reported instances where they apparently did so—including two jurors having been overheard by the lawyer talking about the testimony of an expert witness, forensic pathologist James Ribe. The defense lawyer also related that while a defense witness was testifying, one juror was heard muttering, “Jesus,” apparently rejecting the testimony.
At no time was a questioning of the jurors requested during the trial. The defense petitioned for an unsealing of the jurors’ names about a month after the verdict. The defense lawyer said in a declaration:
“Instances of jurors discussing the case, while not present in the courtroom and prior to the beginning of deliberations, were brought to the attention of the court. One such incident was witnessed by defense counsel.
“Left with the Hobson’s choice of having the jurors ‘called out’ for their behavior and being identified as the ‘rat’ and having the behavior continue unabated, counsel requested the jurors be admonished not to discuss the case prior to deliberations.
“Despite the court’s admonitions, further incidents were witnessed of the jurors having pre-deliberations discussions about the case.
“Further inquiry is necessary to determine whether substantial juror misconduct occurred.”
Petition Denied
Camacho denied the petition, saying of the jurors’ conversations: “I have no idea as to the content. I don’t know what was said, whether or not it was favorable for one side versus the other, the content. So that doesn’t really help me decide whether or not there is a prima facie showing of good cause.”
In his opinion, Wiley said that Dozier “did not make a prima facie showing of good cause for the release of juror information,” explaining:
“Dozier Defense counsel’s declaration was deficient. Counsel said he witnessed jurors communicating, but he failed to describe whom and what he heard. Counsel’s statement that ‘further incidents were witnessed of the jurors having pre-deliberations discussions’ was vague and unsupported. The declaration improperly omitted who witnessed these ‘further incidents’ and whom and what the witnesses heard. This inadequate declaration failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood Dozier could obtain admissible evidence of misconduct if he were to interview the jurors.”
Disagreeing, Stratton wrote:
“Dozier made a prima facie showing of good cause for the release of juror information. I would not find defense counsel’s declaration deficient. The observations of counsel and trial attendees were put on the record each time they were made so there is no dispute that the jurors were communicating with each other and, on one occasion at least, the communications were about the trial, specifically Dr. Ribe. That counsel could not identify the specific jurors who were conferring is immaterial at this stage. There is no doubt the jurors were audibly reacting to and communicating about the trial. Dozier offered many examples of juror behavior, both in and out of the courtroom, that tended to show the jurors communicated with one another and may have prejudged the case. It is reasonably likely Dozier could have discovered admissible evidence of misconduct if he had been permitted to interview the jurors.”
Wiley’s opinion rejects other contentions by the appellant.
The case is People v. Dozier, B312157.
Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company