8 Cited authorities

People v. Fuiava
53 Cal.4th 622 (Cal. 2012) Cited 996 times
Holding that the trial court properly excluded evidence relating to misconduct and civil rights lawsuits against the defendant's colleagues because the minimal relevance of that evidence was substantially outweighed by the risk of jury confusion and undue consumption of time
People v. Manibusan
58 Cal.4th 40 (Cal. 2014) Cited 594 times
Finding of harmlessness based in part on circumstance that “[n]othing in the record suggests that any juror saw the belt”
People v. Linton
56 Cal.4th 1146 (Cal. 2013) Cited 593 times
Finding forfeiture where "no opportunity was presented to the trial court to resolve any material factual disputes and make necessary factual findings"
People v. Whalen
56 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2013) Cited 359 times
Applying corroboration rule on review of denial of section 1118.1 motion
People v. McKinzie
54 Cal.4th 1302 (Cal. 2012) Cited 204 times
Upholding for cause excusal of jurors who would only impose the death penalty in narrow circumstances not at issue in the case
People v. Allen
53 Cal.4th 60 (Cal. 2011) Cited 142 times
Finding no misconduct in juror's reliance on "positive opinion about the reliability of Hispanics in the workplace" based on the juror's specific interactions with Hispanic coworkers
In re Boyette
56 Cal.4th 866 (Cal. 2013) Cited 61 times
In Boyette, for example, the jury questionnaire asked prospective jurors to disclose their criminal history and that of relatives and friends and whether the juror or a relative had a problem with alcohol or drugs.
Smith v. Swarthout
742 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2014) Cited 21 times
Applying Brecht harmless-error standard to a juror misconduct claim on habeas review

PEOPLE v. MERRIMAN

8 Cited authorities

Holding that the trial court properly excluded evidence relating to misconduct and civil rights lawsuits against the defendant's colleagues because the minimal relevance of that evidence was substantially outweighed by the risk of jury confusion and undue consumption of time

Finding of harmlessness based in part on circumstance that “[n]othing in the record suggests that any juror saw the belt”

Finding forfeiture where "no opportunity was presented to the trial court to resolve any material factual disputes and make necessary factual findings"

Applying corroboration rule on review of denial of section 1118.1 motion

Upholding for cause excusal of jurors who would only impose the death penalty in narrow circumstances not at issue in the case

Finding no misconduct in juror's reliance on "positive opinion about the reliability of Hispanics in the workplace" based on the juror's specific interactions with Hispanic coworkers

In Boyette, for example, the jury questionnaire asked prospective jurors to disclose their criminal history and that of relatives and friends and whether the juror or a relative had a problem with alcohol or drugs.

Applying Brecht harmless-error standard to a juror misconduct claim on habeas review