Page 1
Letter From Member of Jury That Convicted Man Didn’t Support New-Trial Motion—C.A.
Juror Says She Had ‘Reasonable Doubt’ but Acquiesced in View of Others; Panel Declares Statement to Be Legally Ineffective, Inquiry Not Warranted
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A letter from a member of the jury that convicted a man of a felony sex offense saying that she had a reasonable doubt as to his guilt but caved in to the sentiment of the other jurors was insufficient to support a motion for a new trial, the First District Court of Appeal held yesterday, adding that the judge was not remiss in declining to conduct an inquiry.
Contra Costa Superior Court Judge Danielle Douglas, sitting on assignment, authored the unpublished opinion for Div. One. It affirms the order by Lake Superior Court Judge Andrew Blum denying a new-trial motion brought by Austin Tyler Merritt who was convicted on May 12, 2023 of a lewd or lascivious act on a person under the age of 14 years and sentenced on July 24, 2023, to six years in prison.
The motion, pursuant to Penal Code §1181, was based on a letter to the court by a woman who served on the jury saying:
“I had a lot of ‘reasonable doubt’. However, I was the only one of the twelve, and after some deliberation, it became obvious that none of the other eleven, some of whom were adamant, would ever change their minds, so I felt compelled to consent to the consensus.”
Two Subdivisions
Merritt invoked subd. 3 of the statute, which authorizes a new trial “[w]hen the jury has…been guilty of any misconduct by which a fair and due consideration of the case has been prevented” and subd. 4 which permits relief “[w[hen the verdict has been decided…by any means other than a fair expression of opinion on the part of all jurors.”
Douglas recited that it has been decided that a verdict cannot be impeached by hearsay affidavits, and noted that the juror’s statement in Merritt’s case was not even under penalty of perjury, but came in a letter.
He declared: “[T]he juror’s comment that ‘it was unfortunate that the closing arguments came on a Friday morning when all were anxious to be done and on their way,’ is not evidence of jury misconduct. A single juror’s speculation that other jurors voted to convict based upon the day and hour as opposed to the weight of the evidence does not support Merritt’s claim that the jury likely committed misconduct.
“Of course, even if Merritt had a signed affidavit from the juror, the affidavit would have been inadmissible under Evidence Code section 1150, subdivision (a). Evidence Code section 1150, subdivision (a) states, ‘No evidence is admissible to show the effect of such statement, conduct, condition, or event upon a juror either in influencing him to assent to or dissent from the verdict or concerning the mental processes by which it was determined.’ As such, the juror’s explanation of her mental process to arrive at a guilty verdict would have been inadmissible.”
Discretion Not Abused
In light of the infirmity of the evidence proffered by Merritt, Douglas said, Blum did not abuse his discretion in declining to launch an inquiry.
Merritt also argued that he was convicted without a verdict by all 12 jurors. Douglas responded:
“This contention is also without merit. Again, Merritt does not produce any admissible evidence that any juror had reasonable doubt. In fact, after the verdict was read in open court, the judge asked, ‘Is there any member of the jury who did not personally vote for that verdict? If so, raise your hands.’ The court noted no hands were raised.”
Douglas said the jury reached a verdict and Blum was powerless to tinker with its decision.
The case is People v. Merritt, A168414.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company