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

church. (18RT 4448:4-6,4451:11-14.) Juror No. 10 told her mother the purpose
of her call was to see how her mother was doing. (l8RT 4451:15-16.) They
talked about various things and at the end of the conversation Juror No. 10
responded to her mother's question about how the case was going by saying, "it's
done." (l8RT 4451:18-24.) Juror No. 10 then reported the following colloquy
with her mother in which she said, "I have some issues and some stuff that I have
to work out, and she said, well, just pray; and, you know, which we don't agree on
that; but then that's neither here nor there." (l8RT 4451:26-28 to 4452:1;
emphasis added.) In direct response to the court's questions, Juror No. 10 also
said she did not share her concerns about the issues or her views regarding the
death penalty with her mother. (l8RT 4452:2-9.)
Thus, this record makes it very clear that Juror No. 10 was not seeking
extrinsic or expert religious views in calling her mother, as respondent would have
this court believe.
The record, therefore, fails to show to a demonstrable reality that the juror
was calling her mother for the purpose ofseeking religious views and respondent's
factual construct must be rejected.
Respondent also asserts that Juror No. 10 exposed the entire jury to
extrinsic matters by informing the jurors that her mother and her friend '"sided
with her doubts' as to the death penalty." (RB 243.)
The record does not establish this to a demonstrable reality. Instead, the
record shows that the "sided-with-her-doubts" language had its source not in the
responses by Juror No. 10 to the court's questions, but in the written note of the
jury foreman, which stated in relevant part, "Jury member No. 10 [] stated that she
had confided with her friends and mother and that they sided with her doubts.
Possibly replacing her would be appropriate." (l8RT 4443-4444.)
The record shows that prior to removing Juror No. 10, the trial court heard
in seriatim from the jury foreperson (Juror No.6) and from Juror No. 10. In the
portion of the hearing involving the jury foreperson, the court confirmed that the
133