Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...

ultimate conclusion that a juror was failing to follow the oath. In taking the
serious step of removing a deliberating juror the court must be mindful of its duty
to provide a record that supports its decision by a demonstrable reality. (People v.
Barnwell, supra, 41 Ca1.4th at pp. 1053-1054.)
In his opening brief, appellant contended that the trial court's finding that
Juror No. 10 had been influenced by her conversations with her mother and her
friend was unsupported by the evidence under the substantial evidence test. (AOB
aat pp. 272-273.)
Appellant now asserts that the trial court's conclusion that Juror No. 10 had
been influenced by outside sources is not supported in the record to a
demonstrable reality.
B. The Record Does Not Establish To A Demonstrable Reality That Juror No.
10 Committed Misconduct Warranting Removal
Appellant provided a summary of the factual events leading up to the trial
court's removal ofJuror No. 10 in the opening brief. (AOB 264-268.)
This court made clear in Barnwell that a reviewing court's task is to
scrutinize the trial court's ruling to see that it is manifestly supported by the facts.
And, so, appellant supplements the factual summary in the opening brief with a
more detailed account ofthe trial court's various restatements ofits ruling below.
correction.
But, first, aspects of the Attorney General's factual summary require
1. Aspects ofthe Attorney General's Factual Summary Require Correction
The Attorney General states that Juror No. 10 appeared to be "seeking
extrinsic or expert religious views during her penalty deliberations" because Juror
No. 10 called her mother who was "at church." (RB 243 fn. 92; citing to 18RT
4451.) The record does not support respondent's description ofthe situation.
The record shows that at a point when she believed the case was done,
Juror No. 10 called her mother and learned from her cousin that her mother was at
132