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

impasse, and that it was important that the trial court make the necessary inquiry.
The trial court refused all requests for further inquiry. On each ofthese occasions,
the trial court responded to counsel's comments with a restatement of its ruling,
which appellant has set forth in the following section.
For the purposes of the present discussion, however, the point appellant
makes is that the record shows to a demonstrable reality that Juror No. 1D's
responses to the court's inquiry, the jury foreperson's responses and notification of
impasse, and the temporal proximity of the events created a confusion as to the
status of the penalty verdict, and that the trial court refused the repeated requests
to have the matter clarified. On the other hand, the record very clearly does not
support to a demonstrable reality respondent's contention that Juror No. 10 caused
the jury to change its unanimous vote for the death penalty to a 10-2 deadlock.
Accordingly, this flawed factual construction must be rejected.
2.The Trial Court's Various Restatements Of Its Ruling
Barnwell explained that under the demonstrable reality standard the
reviewing court must be assured that the trial court's conclusion is manifestly
supported by the evidence upon which the court actually relied. The reviewing
court therefore must consider not only the evidence, but also the record ofreasons
provided by the trial court. (People v. Barnwell, supra, 41 Ca1.4th at p. 1053.)
In this case, the trial court provided multiple restatements of its ruling.
These restatements show that although the court initially concluded Juror No. 10
had committed misconduct by discussing the case with nonjurors, in its final
restatement of its ruling, the court found Juror No. 10 had committed misconduct
because she had been influenced by outside sources. Appellant reproduces the
court's articulations of its ruling below. The record of reasons provided by the
court are not supported by the evidence to a demonstrable reality.
Following the hearing with Juror No. 10, summarized in the opening brief
(AOB 264-268), the defense asked the court to inquire and clarify whether the jury
136