Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...
Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...
Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
(18RT 4450:12-14) or her mother (18RT 4452:2-9). Juror No. 10 said she made a<br />
gesture to her friend indicating her vote and that her friend made a statement about<br />
the death penalty, but the record is silent as to the content <strong>of</strong> the friend's<br />
statement. And, the record is silent as to the effect, if any, <strong>of</strong> the friend's<br />
statement upon Juror No. 10. (18RT 4450:10-28 to 4451:1-8.)<br />
Respondent's factual construction that appellant exposed the entire jury to<br />
extrinsic matters is manifestly unsupported by the record and must be rejected.<br />
Respondent also asserts that after Juror No. 10 exposed the death penalty<br />
beliefs <strong>of</strong> her mother and friend to the jury, the jury changed its unanimous<br />
agreement for the death penalty to a 10-2 impasse for the death penalty. (RB 244.)<br />
The record does not support respondent's claimed version <strong>of</strong> events.<br />
Instead, the record shows that Juror No. 10 told the court they had reached a<br />
verdict late Wednesday (18RT 4448:4-6) and that she told her friend the jury was<br />
going to turn in the verdict the next morning (18RT 4450:1-9). The record also<br />
shows that there was consensus among the court and all counsel that the jury had,<br />
in the words <strong>of</strong> the prosecutor, come "to some sort <strong>of</strong> decision.") (18RT 4453:1<br />
2.) Counsel for Nunez also concluded that the jury may have reached a decision<br />
and asked the court to seek clarification on this point. (18RT 4453-4454.)<br />
Counsel for appellant agreed, noting that Juror No. 10 had said several times in the<br />
course <strong>of</strong>the hearing that the jury had reached a verdict: 4 (18RT 4454-4455.)<br />
At this point, the court ruled there was no verdict and further ruled Juror<br />
No. 10 had committed misconduct, which required her removal from the jury.<br />
(18RT 4455-4456.) Thereafter, both defense counsel periodically revisited the<br />
matter and reiterated that Juror No. 10's description <strong>of</strong> events very much<br />
suggested the jury had reached a verdict, that the verdict might have been an<br />
14 The record reveals that the jury resumed its deliberations at 9:30 a.m. the<br />
Thursday morning (following the Wednesday afternoon Juror No. 10 said the jury<br />
had reached a verdict) and that at 10:10 a.m. the jury foreman reported the jury<br />
was at a 10-2 impasse on the penalty verdict. (38CT 11132; 18RT 4443; AOB<br />
262-263.)<br />
135