Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 California opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2022 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Keenangreen2 sentences2000(E.g., People v. Beeler (1995) 9 Cal.4th 953, 989 , 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 891 P.2d 153 , citation omitted ["The court's discretion in deciding whether to discharge a juror encompasses the discretion to decide what specific procedures to employ including whether to conduct a hearing or detailed inquiry"]; People v. Keenan, supra, 46 Cal.3d 478, 539 , 250 Cal.Rptr. 550 , 758 P.2d 1081 ["broad discretion as to the mode of investigation"]; People v. Delamora (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1850, 1856 , 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 382 ["Clearly, it is up to the trial court to determine the appropriate procedure to follow 2000(E.g., People v. Beeler (1995) 9 Cal.4th 953, 989 , 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 891 P.2d 153 , citation omitted ["The court's discretion in deciding whether to discharge a juror encompasses the discretion to decide what specific procedures to employ including whether to conduct a hearing or detailed inquiry"]; People v. Keenan, supra, 46 Cal.3d 478, 539 , 250 Cal.Rptr. 550 , 758 P.2d 1081 ["broad discretion as to the mode of investigation"]; People v. Delamora (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1850, 1856 , 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 382 ["Clearly, it is up to the trial court to determine the appropriate procedure to follow | 2 | 3 |
People v. Prietogreen2 sentences2021As to jurors who did not voice concern, the court exercised its “considerable discretion . . . ‘whether to conduct a hearing or detailed inquiry.’ ” (People v. Prieto (2003) 30 Cal.4th 226, 274 .) Its decision not to question all jurors was not an abuse 10 of discretion. 2013Defendant claims the trial court erred by not identifying the errant jurors and questioning them further. “ ‘When a trial court is aware of possible juror misconduct, the court “must ‘make whatever inquiry is reasonably necessary’ ” to resolve the matter.’ [Citation.] Although courts should promptly investigate allegations of juror misconduct ‘to nip the problem in the bud’ [citation], they have considerable discretion in determining how to conduct the investigation. ‘The court’s discretion in deciding whether to discharge a juror encompasses the discretion to decide what specific procedures t | 1 | 4 |
People v. Beelerred2 sentences2014The [trial] court’s discretion in deciding whether to discharge a juror encompasses the discretion to decide what specific procedures to employ including whether to conduct a hearing or detailed inquiry.” (People v. Beeler (1995) 9 Cal.4th 953, 989 .) “ . . . [T]he Legislature has left the procedure for determining whether grounds for dismissal exist in the trial court’s hands.” (People v. Duff, supra, 58 Cal.4th at p. 560, fn. 15 .) It is all well and good for defendant now, at this late date, to cite the Unemployment Insurance Code in an effort to demonstrate to this court that this juror wo 2006The trial court retains discretion about what procedures to employ, including conducting a hearing or detailed inquiry, when determining whether to discharge a juror. ( People v. Beeler, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 989, 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 891 P.2d 153 .) We discern no abuse of discretion in the manner the trial court conducted its inquiry of the jury. 6. | 1 | 4 |
People v. Guerrared2 sentences2021With respect to her understanding of the proceedings, she indicated her understanding was “[n]o very well, but--” With respect to whether she understood the witnesses she said, “[y]eah, sometime I no understand things, but I will try.” We are cognizant that “[t]he trial court retains discretion about what procedures to employ, including conducting a hearing or detailed inquiry, when determining whether to discharge a juror.” (Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1159 .) Here, however, it is clear on the face of the record that the trial court’s efforts to ascertain whether Juror No. 7 understood th 2015It can judge the person's sincerity and actual state of mind far more reliably than an appellate court reviewing only a cold transcript." (Ibid.) "The trial court retains discretion about what procedures to employ, including conducting a hearing or detailed inquiry, when determining whether to discharge a juror." (People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1159 .) The "manner in which the trial court conducted its inquiry [on a juror's fitness to serve] is subject to review for abuse of discretion under the typical standard." (People v. Fuiava (2012) 53 Cal.4th 622, 712 , italics deleted.) For e | 1 | 3 |
People v. Duffgreen1 sentence2014The [trial] court’s discretion in deciding whether to discharge a juror encompasses the discretion to decide what specific procedures to employ including whether to conduct a hearing or detailed inquiry.” (People v. Beeler (1995) 9 Cal.4th 953, 989 .) “ . . . [T]he Legislature has left the procedure for determining whether grounds for dismissal exist in the trial court’s hands.” (People v. Duff, supra, 58 Cal.4th at p. 560, fn. 15 .) It is all well and good for defendant now, at this late date, to cite the Unemployment Insurance Code in an effort to demonstrate to this court that this juror wo | 1 | 1 |
People v. Virgilgreen2 sentences2013Defendant claims the trial court erred by not identifying the errant jurors and questioning them further. “ ‘When a trial court is aware of possible juror misconduct, the court “must ‘make whatever inquiry is reasonably necessary’ ” to resolve the matter.’ [Citation.] Although courts should promptly investigate allegations of juror misconduct ‘to nip the problem in the bud’ [citation], they have considerable discretion in determining how to conduct the investigation. ‘The court’s discretion in deciding whether to discharge a juror encompasses the discretion to decide what specific procedures t 2013Defendant claims the trial court erred by not identifying the errant jurors and questioning them further. “ ‘When a trial court is aware of possible juror misconduct, the court “must ‘make whatever inquiry is reasonably necessary’ ” to resolve the matter.’ [Citation.] Although courts should promptly investigate allegations of juror misconduct ‘to nip the problem in the bud’ [citation], they have considerable discretion in determining how to conduct the investigation. ‘The court’s discretion in deciding whether to discharge a juror encompasses the discretion to decide what specific procedures t | 1 | 1 |
People v. McNealgreen2 sentences2000(See People v. Burgener, supra, 41 Cal.3d 505, 519 , 224 Cal.Rptr. 112 , 714 P.2d 1251 ["a complete, though summary, hearing"].) Thus "it is not necessary to take testimony in the manner required judicially to establish a controverted proposition." ( People v. Tinnin, supra, 136 Cal.App. 301, 318-319 , 28 P.2d 951 ; see People v. McNeal, supra, 90 Cal. App.3d 830, 837 , 153 Cal.Rptr. 706 [court not required to take sworn testimony].) More substantively, it is clear that any investigation into juror misconduct "should be complete enough to determine `good cause.'" ( People v. McNeal (1979) 90 C 2000(See People v. Burgener, supra, 41 Cal.3d 505, 519 , 224 Cal.Rptr. 112 , 714 P.2d 1251 ["a complete, though summary, hearing"].) Thus "it is not necessary to take testimony in the manner required judicially to establish a controverted proposition." ( People v. Tinnin, supra, 136 Cal.App. 301, 318-319 , 28 P.2d 951 ; see People v. McNeal, supra, 90 Cal. App.3d 830, 837 , 153 Cal.Rptr. 706 [court not required to take sworn testimony].) More substantively, it is clear that any investigation into juror misconduct "should be complete enough to determine `good cause.'" ( People v. McNeal (1979) 90 C | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Ray
green
2 sentences2022(People v. Ray (1996) 13 Cal.4th 313, 343 ; People v. Keenan (1988) 46 Cal.3d 478, 539 .) The juror misconduct claim is based on a note sent by the jury foreman on the morning the jury reached its verdict. 2021(People v. Keenan (1988) 46 Cal.3d 478, 532, 539 ; People v. Ray (1996) 13 Cal.4th 313, 343 .) An impartial jury is one in which no juror is incapable or unwilling to decide the case solely on the evidence at trial. | 2 | 2021–2022 |
People v. Espinoza
green
2 sentences2013(People v. Eckstrom (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 323, 330 .) ―‗When a trial court is aware of possible juror misconduct, the court ―must ‗make whatever inquiry is reasonably necessary‘‖ to resolve the matter.‘ [Citation.] Although courts should promptly investigate allegations of juror misconduct ‗to nip the problem in the bud‘ [citation], they have considerable discretion in determining how to conduct the investigation. ‗The court‘s discretion in deciding whether to discharge a juror encompasses the discretion to decide what specific procedures to employ including whether to conduct a hearing or det 2013(People v. Eckstrom (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 323, 330 .) ―‗When a trial court is aware of possible juror misconduct, the court ―must ‗make whatever inquiry is reasonably necessary‘‖ to resolve the matter.‘ [Citation.] Although courts should promptly investigate allegations of juror misconduct ‗to nip the problem in the bud‘ [citation], they have considerable discretion in determining how to conduct the investigation. ‗The court‘s discretion in deciding whether to discharge a juror encompasses the discretion to decide what specific procedures to employ including whether to conduct a hearing or det | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Eckstrom
green
2 sentences2013(People v. Eckstrom (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 323, 330 .) ―‗When a trial court is aware of possible juror misconduct, the court ―must ‗make whatever inquiry is reasonably necessary‘‖ to resolve the matter.‘ [Citation.] Although courts should promptly investigate allegations of juror misconduct ‗to nip the problem in the bud‘ [citation], they have considerable discretion in determining how to conduct the investigation. ‗The court‘s discretion in deciding whether to discharge a juror encompasses the discretion to decide what specific procedures to employ including whether to conduct a hearing or det 2013(People v. Eckstrom (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 323, 330 .) ―‗When a trial court is aware of possible juror misconduct, the court ―must ‗make whatever inquiry is reasonably necessary‘‖ to resolve the matter.‘ [Citation.] Although courts should promptly investigate allegations of juror misconduct ‗to nip the problem in the bud‘ [citation], they have considerable discretion in determining how to conduct the investigation. ‗The court‘s discretion in deciding whether to discharge a juror encompasses the discretion to decide what specific procedures to employ including whether to conduct a hearing or det | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Bennett
green
2 sentences2013(People v. Eckstrom (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 323, 330 .) ―‗When a trial court is aware of possible juror misconduct, the court ―must ‗make whatever inquiry is reasonably necessary‘‖ to resolve the matter.‘ [Citation.] Although courts should promptly investigate allegations of juror misconduct ‗to nip the problem in the bud‘ [citation], they have considerable discretion in determining how to conduct the investigation. ‗The court‘s discretion in deciding whether to discharge a juror encompasses the discretion to decide what specific procedures to employ including whether to conduct a hearing or det 2013(People v. Eckstrom (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 323, 330 .) ―‗When a trial court is aware of possible juror misconduct, the court ―must ‗make whatever inquiry is reasonably necessary‘‖ to resolve the matter.‘ [Citation.] Although courts should promptly investigate allegations of juror misconduct ‗to nip the problem in the bud‘ [citation], they have considerable discretion in determining how to conduct the investigation. ‗The court‘s discretion in deciding whether to discharge a juror encompasses the discretion to decide what specific procedures to employ including whether to conduct a hearing or det | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Thompson
green
2 sentences2013(People v. Eckstrom (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 323, 330 .) ―‗When a trial court is aware of possible juror misconduct, the court ―must ‗make whatever inquiry is reasonably necessary‘‖ to resolve the matter.‘ [Citation.] Although courts should promptly investigate allegations of juror misconduct ‗to nip the problem in the bud‘ [citation], they have considerable discretion in determining how to conduct the investigation. ‗The court‘s discretion in deciding whether to discharge a juror encompasses the discretion to decide what specific procedures to employ including whether to conduct a hearing or det 2013(People v. Eckstrom (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 323, 330 .) ―‗When a trial court is aware of possible juror misconduct, the court ―must ‗make whatever inquiry is reasonably necessary‘‖ to resolve the matter.‘ [Citation.] Although courts should promptly investigate allegations of juror misconduct ‗to nip the problem in the bud‘ [citation], they have considerable discretion in determining how to conduct the investigation. ‗The court‘s discretion in deciding whether to discharge a juror encompasses the discretion to decide what specific procedures to employ including whether to conduct a hearing or det | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Kaurish
green
2 sentences2013(People v. Eckstrom (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 323, 330 .) ―‗When a trial court is aware of possible juror misconduct, the court ―must ‗make whatever inquiry is reasonably necessary‘‖ to resolve the matter.‘ [Citation.] Although courts should promptly investigate allegations of juror misconduct ‗to nip the problem in the bud‘ [citation], they have considerable discretion in determining how to conduct the investigation. ‗The court‘s discretion in deciding whether to discharge a juror encompasses the discretion to decide what specific procedures to employ including whether to conduct a hearing or det 2013(People v. Eckstrom (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 323, 330 .) ―‗When a trial court is aware of possible juror misconduct, the court ―must ‗make whatever inquiry is reasonably necessary‘‖ to resolve the matter.‘ [Citation.] Although courts should promptly investigate allegations of juror misconduct ‗to nip the problem in the bud‘ [citation], they have considerable discretion in determining how to conduct the investigation. ‗The court‘s discretion in deciding whether to discharge a juror encompasses the discretion to decide what specific procedures to employ including whether to conduct a hearing or det | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Fuiava
green
1 sentence2015It can judge the person's sincerity and actual state of mind far more reliably than an appellate court reviewing only a cold transcript." (Ibid.) "The trial court retains discretion about what procedures to employ, including conducting a hearing or detailed inquiry, when determining whether to discharge a juror." (People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1159 .) The "manner in which the trial court conducted its inquiry [on a juror's fitness to serve] is subject to review for abuse of discretion under the typical standard." (People v. Fuiava (2012) 53 Cal.4th 622, 712 , italics deleted.) For e | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Holt
green
1 sentence2015(People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 656 .) We reject Grey's assertion that an objection would have been futile as unsupported by the record. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Thomas
green
1 sentence2013(People v. Thomas (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1477, 1486 .)6 Smith does not explain how the substitution of Juror No. 4 with an alternate juror prejudiced him. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Manriquez
green
2 sentences2000(E.g., People v. Beeler (1995) 9 Cal.4th 953, 989 , 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 891 P.2d 153 , citation omitted ["The court's discretion in deciding whether to discharge a juror encompasses the discretion to decide what specific procedures to employ including whether to conduct a hearing or detailed inquiry"]; People v. Keenan, supra, 46 Cal.3d 478, 539 , 250 Cal.Rptr. 550 , 758 P.2d 1081 ["broad discretion as to the mode of investigation"]; People v. Delamora (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1850, 1856 , 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 382 ["Clearly, it is up to the trial court to determine the appropriate procedure to follow 2000(E.g., People v. Beeler (1995) 9 Cal.4th 953, 989 , 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 891 P.2d 153 , citation omitted ["The court's discretion in deciding whether to discharge a juror encompasses the discretion to decide what specific procedures to employ including whether to conduct a hearing or detailed inquiry"]; People v. Keenan, supra, 46 Cal.3d 478, 539 , 250 Cal.Rptr. 550 , 758 P.2d 1081 ["broad discretion as to the mode of investigation"]; People v. Delamora (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1850, 1856 , 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 382 ["Clearly, it is up to the trial court to determine the appropriate procedure to follow | 1 | 2000–2000 |
People v. Tinnin
green
2 sentences2000(E.g., People v. Beeler (1995) 9 Cal.4th 953, 989 , 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 891 P.2d 153 , citation omitted ["The court's discretion in deciding whether to discharge a juror encompasses the discretion to decide what specific procedures to employ including whether to conduct a hearing or detailed inquiry"]; People v. Keenan, supra, 46 Cal.3d 478, 539 , 250 Cal.Rptr. 550 , 758 P.2d 1081 ["broad discretion as to the mode of investigation"]; People v. Delamora (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1850, 1856 , 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 382 ["Clearly, it is up to the trial court to determine the appropriate procedure to follow 2000(E.g., People v. Beeler (1995) 9 Cal.4th 953, 989 , 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 891 P.2d 153 , citation omitted ["The court's discretion in deciding whether to discharge a juror encompasses the discretion to decide what specific procedures to employ including whether to conduct a hearing or detailed inquiry"]; People v. Keenan, supra, 46 Cal.3d 478, 539 , 250 Cal.Rptr. 550 , 758 P.2d 1081 ["broad discretion as to the mode of investigation"]; People v. Delamora (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1850, 1856 , 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 382 ["Clearly, it is up to the trial court to determine the appropriate procedure to follow | 1 | 2000–2000 |
People v. Castorena
green
2 sentences2000(See People v. Burgener, supra, 41 Cal.3d 505, 519 , 224 Cal.Rptr. 112 , 714 P.2d 1251 ["a complete, though summary, hearing"].) Thus "it is not necessary to take testimony in the manner required judicially to establish a controverted proposition." ( People v. Tinnin, supra, 136 Cal.App. 301, 318-319 , 28 P.2d 951 ; see People v. McNeal, supra, 90 Cal. App.3d 830, 837 , 153 Cal.Rptr. 706 [court not required to take sworn testimony].) More substantively, it is clear that any investigation into juror misconduct "should be complete enough to determine `good cause.'" ( People v. McNeal (1979) 90 C 2000(See People v. Burgener, supra, 41 Cal.3d 505, 519 , 224 Cal.Rptr. 112 , 714 P.2d 1251 ["a complete, though summary, hearing"].) Thus "it is not necessary to take testimony in the manner required judicially to establish a controverted proposition." ( People v. Tinnin, supra, 136 Cal.App. 301, 318-319 , 28 P.2d 951 ; see People v. McNeal, supra, 90 Cal. App.3d 830, 837 , 153 Cal.Rptr. 706 [court not required to take sworn testimony].) More substantively, it is clear that any investigation into juror misconduct "should be complete enough to determine `good cause.'" ( People v. McNeal (1979) 90 C | 1 | 2000–2000 |
People v. Burgener
red
2 sentences2000(See People v. Burgener, supra, 41 Cal.3d 505, 519 , 224 Cal.Rptr. 112 , 714 P.2d 1251 ["a complete, though summary, hearing"].) Thus "it is not necessary to take testimony in the manner required judicially to establish a controverted proposition." ( People v. Tinnin, supra, 136 Cal.App. 301, 318-319 , 28 P.2d 951 ; see People v. McNeal, supra, 90 Cal. App.3d 830, 837 , 153 Cal.Rptr. 706 [court not required to take sworn testimony].) More substantively, it is clear that any investigation into juror misconduct "should be complete enough to determine `good cause.'" ( People v. McNeal (1979) 90 C 2000(See People v. Burgener, supra, 41 Cal.3d 505, 519 , 224 Cal.Rptr. 112 , 714 P.2d 1251 ["a complete, though summary, hearing"].) Thus "it is not necessary to take testimony in the manner required judicially to establish a controverted proposition." ( People v. Tinnin, supra, 136 Cal.App. 301, 318-319 , 28 P.2d 951 ; see People v. McNeal, supra, 90 Cal. App.3d 830, 837 , 153 Cal.Rptr. 706 [court not required to take sworn testimony].) More substantively, it is clear that any investigation into juror misconduct "should be complete enough to determine `good cause.'" ( People v. McNeal (1979) 90 C | 1 | 2000–2000 |
People v. Delamora
green
2 sentences2000(E.g., People v. Beeler (1995) 9 Cal.4th 953, 989 , 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 891 P.2d 153 , citation omitted ["The court's discretion in deciding whether to discharge a juror encompasses the discretion to decide what specific procedures to employ including whether to conduct a hearing or detailed inquiry"]; People v. Keenan, supra, 46 Cal.3d 478, 539 , 250 Cal.Rptr. 550 , 758 P.2d 1081 ["broad discretion as to the mode of investigation"]; People v. Delamora (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1850, 1856 , 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 382 ["Clearly, it is up to the trial court to determine the appropriate procedure to follow 2000(E.g., People v. Beeler (1995) 9 Cal.4th 953, 989 , 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 891 P.2d 153 , citation omitted ["The court's discretion in deciding whether to discharge a juror encompasses the discretion to decide what specific procedures to employ including whether to conduct a hearing or detailed inquiry"]; People v. Keenan, supra, 46 Cal.3d 478, 539 , 250 Cal.Rptr. 550 , 758 P.2d 1081 ["broad discretion as to the mode of investigation"]; People v. Delamora (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1850, 1856 , 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 382 ["Clearly, it is up to the trial court to determine the appropriate procedure to follow | 1 | 2000–2000 |
In Re Mendes
red
2 sentences1995(Accord, Mendes, supra, 23 Cal.3d 847, 852 .) Moreover, the record supports no inference that Juror Coley was coerced. 1995(Accord, Mendes, supra, 23 Cal.3d 847, 852 .) Moreover, the record supports no inference that Juror Coley was coerced. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.