demonstrable reality standard in California

2026(People v. Bonilla (2007) 41 Cal.4th 313, 350 .) A court’s decision regarding discharge is generally upheld if there is substantial evidence to support it; the record must show the juror’s inability to perform as a “ ‘ “ ‘demonstrable reality.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Virgil (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1210, 1242 ; see also People v. Barnwell (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1038, 1052 (Barnwell) [the more stringent demonstrable reality standard is to be applied in review of juror removal cases, which reflects the reviewing court’s obligation to protect a defendant’s fundamental rights to due process and to a fair trial by a

2025B Section 1089 provides: “If at any time, whether before or after the final submission of the case to the jury, a juror . . . upon . . . good cause shown to the court is found to be unable to perform his or her duty, . . . the court may order the juror to be discharged and draw the name of an alternate, who shall then take a place in the jury box. . . .” Discharge of a juror under section 1089 “is committed to the discretion of the trial court, and we review 15 such decisions by asking whether the grounds for such removal appear in the record as a demonstrable reality.” (People v. Thompson (20

2022Excusing Seated Jurors for Cause Penal Code section 1089 authorizes a trial court to discharge a seated juror, “If at any time, whether before or after the final submission of the case to the jury, a juror dies or becomes ill, or upon other good cause shown to the court is found to be unable to perform his or her duty.” (Italics added.) Thus, before excusing a seated juror, the trial court must find there is good cause to believe the juror is unable to perform his or her duty. “[A]n appellate court’s review of the decision to remove a seated juror is not conducted under the typical abuse of di

2022Excusing Seated Jurors for Cause Penal Code section 1089 authorizes a trial court to discharge a seated juror, “If at any time, whether before or after the final submission of the case to the jury, a juror dies or becomes ill, or upon other good cause shown to the court is found to be unable to perform his or her duty.” (Italics added.) Thus, before excusing a seated juror, the trial court must find there is good cause to believe the juror is unable to perform his or her duty. “[A]n appellate court’s review of the decision to remove a seated juror is not conducted under the typical abuse of di

2024As previously stated, the court commented, “A number of these examples that the Court just put on the record very well could qualify as reasonable inferences derived from the evidence presented, as Juror [No. 4] indicated to the Court when the Court had an opportunity to ask her questions individually, but certainly not all of them would fall under that exception.” As such, it is not clear from the record which, if any, of these concerns formed the basis for the trial court’s conclusion that Juror No. 4 failed to engage in deliberations, and “‘[u]nder the demonstrable reality standard, … the r

2024Specifically, the juror’s ‘inability to perform’ his or her duty ‘must appear in the record as a demonstrable reality.’ (People v. Compton (1971) 6 Cal.3d 55, 60 ; accord, People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 821 ; Barnwell, supra, at p. 1052 .) “Under the demonstrable reality standard, a reviewing court’s task is more ‘than simply determining whether any substantial evidence in the record supports the trial court’s decision.’ (People v. Lomax (2010) 49 Cal.4th 530, 589 .) ‘A substantial evidence inquiry examines the record in the light most favorable to the judgment and upholds it if the r

2024Under the demonstrable reality standard, however, the reviewing court must be confident that the trial court’s conclusion is manifestly supported by evidence on which the court actually relied. [¶] In reaching that conclusion, the reviewing panel will consider not just the evidence itself, but also the record of reasons the court provides.’ ( Barnwell, supra, 41 Cal.4th at pp. 1052-1053, citation omitted.)” ( Armstrong, supra, 1 Cal.5th at pp. 450– 451; accord, People v. Perez (2018) 4 Cal.5th 421, 446 ; Allen and Johnson, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 71 .) On review, “we afford deference to the tr

2023It requires a showing that the court as a trier of fact did rely on evidence that, in light of the entire record, supports its conclusion that [good cause for removing the juror] was established.’ ” (Id. at p. 712.) Under the demonstrable reality standard, the reviewing court “must be confident that the trial court’s conclusion is manifestly supported by evidence on which the court 27. actually relied.” (Barnwell, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 1053 .) In reaching that conclusion, this court considers “not just the evidence itself, but also the record of reasons the court provides.” (Ibid.) The “heig

2025B Section 1089 provides: “If at any time, whether before or after the final submission of the case to the jury, a juror . . . upon . . . good cause shown to the court is found to be unable to perform his or her duty, . . . the court may order the juror to be discharged and draw the name of an alternate, who shall then take a place in the jury box. . . .” Discharge of a juror under section 1089 “is committed to the discretion of the trial court, and we review 15 such decisions by asking whether the grounds for such removal appear in the record as a demonstrable reality.” (People v. Thompson (20

2015Discussion “The court may discharge a juror for good cause (see § 1089), which includes a failure to follow the court’s instructions . . . .” (People v. Allen and Johnson (2011) 53 Cal.4th 60, 69 [ 133 Cal.Rptr.3d 548 , 264 P.3d 336 ].) “A juror who violates his or her oath and the trial court’s instructions is guilty of misconduct.” (People v. Linton (2013) 56 Cal.4th 1146, 1194 [ 158 Cal.Rptr.3d 521 , 302 P.3d 927 ].) “We review a trial court’s decision to discharge a juror under an abuse of discretion standard, and will uphold such decision if the record supports the juror’s disqualificatio

2025(People v. Fuiava, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 711 .) The test involves a ‘ “heightened standard [that] more fully reflects an appellate court’s obligation to protect a defendant’s fundamental rights to due process and to a fair trial by an unbiased jury.” ’ (People v. Armstrong (2016) 1 Cal.5th 432, 450 (Armstrong).) “Under the demonstrable reality test, our task involves more than simply determining whether there is any substantial evidence upon which a reasonable trier of fact could have relied in reaching its conclusion.

2025(People v. Fuiava, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 711 .) The test involves a “ ‘heightened standard [that] more fully reflects an appellate court’s obligation to protect a defendant’s fundamental rights to due process and to a fair trial by an unbiased jury.’ ” (People v. Armstrong (2016) 1 Cal.5th 432, 450 (Armstrong).) 10 Under the demonstrable reality test, our task involves more than simply determining whether there is any substantial evidence upon which a reasonable trier of fact could have relied in reaching its conclusion.

2024(People v. Barton (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 496 , 509 (Barton).) “ ‘ “It requires a showing that the court as trier of fact did rely on evidence that, in light of the entire record, supports its conclusion that [good cause for removing the juror] was established.” ’ ([People v. Fuiava (2012) 53 Cal.4th 622 ,] 712.) Under the demonstrable reality standard, reviewing courts ‘must be confident that the trial court’s conclusion is manifestly supported by evidence on which the court actually relied.’ ([People v. ]Barnwell[ (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1038 ,] 1053.) In reaching that conclusion, this court conside

2024Under the demonstrable reality standard, however, the reviewing court must be confident that the trial court’s conclusion is manifestly supported by evidence on which the court actually relied. [¶] In reaching that conclusion, the reviewing panel will consider not just the evidence itself, but also the record of reasons the court provides.’ ( Barnwell, supra, 41 Cal.4th at pp. 1052-1053, citation omitted.)” ( Armstrong, supra, 1 Cal.5th at pp. 450– 451; accord, People v. Perez (2018) 4 Cal.5th 421, 446 ; Allen and Johnson, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 71 .) On review, “we afford deference to the tr

2025(People v. Fuiava, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 711 .) The test involves a ‘ “heightened standard [that] more fully reflects an appellate court’s obligation to protect a defendant’s fundamental rights to due process and to a fair trial by an unbiased jury.” ’ (People v. Armstrong (2016) 1 Cal.5th 432, 450 (Armstrong).) “Under the demonstrable reality test, our task involves more than simply determining whether there is any substantial evidence upon which a reasonable trier of fact could have relied in reaching its conclusion.

2025(People v. Fuiava, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 711 .) The test involves a “ ‘heightened standard [that] more fully reflects an appellate court’s obligation to protect a defendant’s fundamental rights to due process and to a fair trial by an unbiased jury.’ ” (People v. Armstrong (2016) 1 Cal.5th 432, 450 (Armstrong).) 10 Under the demonstrable reality test, our task involves more than simply determining whether there is any substantial evidence upon which a reasonable trier of fact could have relied in reaching its conclusion.

2024Specifically, the juror’s ‘inability to perform’ his or her duty ‘must appear in the record as a demonstrable reality.’ (People v. Compton (1971) 6 Cal.3d 55, 60 ; accord, People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 821 ; Barnwell, supra, at p. 1052 .) “Under the demonstrable reality standard, a reviewing court’s task is more ‘than simply determining whether any substantial evidence in the record supports the trial court’s decision.’ (People v. Lomax (2010) 49 Cal.4th 530, 589 .) ‘A substantial evidence inquiry examines the record in the light most favorable to the judgment and upholds it if the r

2022(Lomax, supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 589 .) However, “ ‘a somewhat stronger showing’ than is typical for abuse of discretion review must be made to support such decisions on appeal. [Citation.]” (Ibid.) “[T]he basis for a juror’s disqualification must appear on the record as a ‘demonstrable reality.’ This standard involves ‘a more comprehensive and less deferential review’ than simply determining whether any substantial evidence in the record supports the trial court’s decision. [Citation.] It must appear ‘that the court as trier of fact did rely on evidence that, in light of the entire record, sup

2024(People v. Duff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 527, 560 [].) So long as it does, ‘ “the court’s action will be upheld on appeal.” ’ ([People v. ]Sattiewhite[ (2014) 59 Cal.4th 446 ,] 486.)” ( Peterson, supra, 10 Cal.5th at pp. 472-473.) The demonstrable reality test is more comprehensive and less deferential than substantial evidence review.

2021Standard of Review and Applicable Law By statute, a trial court may remove any juror who “becomes ill, or upon other good cause shown to the court is found to be unable to perform his or her duty.” (§ 1089; People v. Duff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 527, 560 .) Removal of a juror under section 1089 is committed to the discretion of the trial court, and we review whether the grounds for such removal appear in the record as a “demonstrable reality.” (People v. Thompson (2010) 49 Cal.4th 79, 137 .) “The demonstrable reality test entails a more comprehensive and less deferential review.

2025(See, e.g., People v. Williams (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1244, 1262 (Williams); People v. Allen and Johnson (2011) 53 Cal.4th 60 , 69–70 (Allen and Johnson) [“The court may discharge a juror for good cause (see § 1089), which includes a failure to follow the court’s instructions [citation].”]; People v. Williams (2001) 25 Cal.4th 441, 448 [“A juror who refuses to follow the court’s instructions is ‘unable to perform his duty’ within the meaning of . . . section 1089.”].) Furthermore, “[a] juror who 16 violates his or her oath and the trial court’s instructions is guilty of misconduct.” (People v. Lint

2021It requires a showing that the court as trier of fact did rely on evidence that, in light of the entire record, supports its conclusion that [the basis for removal] was established.” (People v. Barnwell (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1038 , 1052-1053; accord, People v. Williams (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1244, 1262 .) The “reviewing court does not reweigh the evidence” under the demonstrable reality test.

2016Under the demonstrable reality standard, however, the reviewing court must be confident that the trial court's conclusion is manifestly supported by evidence on which the court actually relied.' " (Homick, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 899 ; see People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 821 [noting a person's inability to perform as a juror "requires a 'stronger evidentiary showing than mere substantial evidence' "].) In assessing the trial court's ruling, the reviewing court must "consider not just the evidence itself, but also the record of reasons the [trial] court provides." (People v. Barnwell (2

2013(People v. Alexander (2010) 49 Cal.4th 846, 928 [ 113 Cal.Rptr.3d 190 , 235 P.3d 873 ].) A “trial court’s attempt to ensure the jurors understood the law,” and removal of a holdout juror who would not or could not follow the law, “cannot be viewed as an improper attempt to overcome a deadlock in the jury’s deliberations.” (Ibid.) “While removal of a juror is committed to the discretion of the trial court, upon review, the juror’s disqualification must appear on the record as a demonstrable reality. ‘The demonstrable reality test entails a more comprehensive and less deferential review’ than su

2025B Section 1089 provides: “If at any time, whether before or after the final submission of the case to the jury, a juror . . . upon . . . good cause shown to the court is found to be unable to perform his or her duty, . . . the court may order the juror to be discharged and draw the name of an alternate, who shall then take a place in the jury box. . . .” Discharge of a juror under section 1089 “is committed to the discretion of the trial court, and we review 15 such decisions by asking whether the grounds for such removal appear in the record as a demonstrable reality.” (People v. Thompson (20

2021Standard of Review and Applicable Law By statute, a trial court may remove any juror who “becomes ill, or upon other good cause shown to the court is found to be unable to perform his or her duty.” (§ 1089; People v. Duff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 527, 560 .) Removal of a juror under section 1089 is committed to the discretion of the trial court, and we review whether the grounds for such removal appear in the record as a “demonstrable reality.” (People v. Thompson (2010) 49 Cal.4th 79, 137 .) “The demonstrable reality test entails a more comprehensive and less deferential review.

2024Specifically, the juror’s ‘inability to perform’ his or her duty ‘must appear in the record as a demonstrable reality.’ (People v. Compton (1971) 6 Cal.3d 55, 60 ; accord, People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 821 ; Barnwell, supra, at p. 1052 .) “Under the demonstrable reality standard, a reviewing court’s task is more ‘than simply determining whether any substantial evidence in the record supports the trial court’s decision.’ (People v. Lomax (2010) 49 Cal.4th 530, 589 .) ‘A substantial evidence inquiry examines the record in the light most favorable to the judgment and upholds it if the r

2016Specifically, the juror’s “inability to perform” his or her duty “must appear in the record as a demonstrable reality.” (People v. Compton (1971) 6 Cal.3d 55, 60 [ 98 Cal.Rptr. 217 , 490 P.2d 537 ]; accord, People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 821 [ 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 211 , 187 P.3d 1041 ]; Barnwell, supra, at p. 1052 .) Under the demonstrable reality standard, a reviewing court’s task is more “than simply determining whether any substantial evidence in the record supports the trial court’s decision.” (People v. Lomax (2010) 49 Cal.4th 530, 589 [ 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 96 , 234 P.3d 377 ].) “A substan

2016Under the demonstrable reality standard, however, the reviewing court must be confident that the trial court's conclusion is manifestly supported by evidence on which the court actually relied.' " (Homick, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 899 ; see People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 821 [noting a person's inability to perform as a juror "requires a 'stronger evidentiary showing than mere substantial evidence' "].) In assessing the trial court's ruling, the reviewing court must "consider not just the evidence itself, but also the record of reasons the [trial] court provides." (People v. Barnwell (2

2016Guiding Principles The law permits the trial court to discharge a juror at any time, including during deliberations, based on a showing of "good cause" that the juror is "unable to perform his or her duty." (§ 1089.) " ' "Grounds for investigation or discharge of a juror may be established by his statements or conduct, including events which occur during jury deliberations and are reported by fellow panelists." ' " (People v. Homick (2012) 55 Cal.4th 816, 898 (Homick).) 14 "While removal of a juror is committed to the discretion of the trial court, upon review, the juror's disqualification mus

2015Discussion “The court may discharge a juror for good cause (see § 1089), which includes a failure to follow the court’s instructions . . . .” (People v. Allen and Johnson (2011) 53 Cal.4th 60, 69 [ 133 Cal.Rptr.3d 548 , 264 P.3d 336 ].) “A juror who violates his or her oath and the trial court’s instructions is guilty of misconduct.” (People v. Linton (2013) 56 Cal.4th 1146, 1194 [ 158 Cal.Rptr.3d 521 , 302 P.3d 927 ].) “We review a trial court’s decision to discharge a juror under an abuse of discretion standard, and will uphold such decision if the record supports the juror’s disqualificatio

2015Discussion “The court may discharge a juror for good cause (see § 1089), which includes a failure to follow the court’s instructions . . . .” (People v. Allen and Johnson (2011) 53 Cal.4th 60, 69 [ 133 Cal.Rptr.3d 548 , 264 P.3d 336 ].) “A juror who violates his or her oath and the trial court’s instructions is guilty of misconduct.” (People v. Linton (2013) 56 Cal.4th 1146, 1194 [ 158 Cal.Rptr.3d 521 , 302 P.3d 927 ].) “We review a trial court’s decision to discharge a juror under an abuse of discretion standard, and will uphold such decision if the record supports the juror’s disqualificatio

2020It requires a showing that the court as trier of fact did rely on evidence that, in light of the entire record, supports its conclusion that [the basis for removal] was established.” (People v. Barnwell (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1038 , 1052–1053; accord, People v. Williams (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1244, 1262 .) “‘Once a trial court is put on notice that good cause to discharge a juror may exist, it is the court’s duty “to make whatever inquiry is reasonably necessary” to determine whether the juror should be discharged.’” (People v. Leonard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 1409 ; accord, People v. Duff, supra, 58 Ca

2014(People v. Bell (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 282, 286-289 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 415 ]; People v. Hall (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 299, 305-307 [ 157 Cal.Rptr. 107 ].) Whether a juror’s illness can best be accommodated by a continuance or replacement with an alternate is a matter committed to the trial court’s discretion.

2015(People v. Burgener (2003) 29 Cal.4th 833, 878 [ 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 747 , 62 P.3d 1 ].) [¶] ‘We review a trial court’s decision to discharge a juror under an abuse of discretion standard, and will uphold such decision if the record supports the juror’s disqualification as a demonstrable reality.’ (People v. Wilson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1, 26 [ 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 620 , 178 P.3d 1113 ].) ‘The demonstrable reality test entails a more comprehensive and less deferential review’ than is typical under the abuse of discretion standard.

2015(People v. Burgener (2003) 29 Cal.4th 833, 878 [ 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 747 , 62 P.3d 1 ].) [¶] ‘We review a trial court’s decision to discharge a juror under an abuse of discretion standard, and will uphold such decision if the record supports the juror’s disqualification as a demonstrable reality.’ (People v. Wilson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1, 26 [ 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 620 , 178 P.3d 1113 ].) ‘The demonstrable reality test entails a more comprehensive and less deferential review’ than is typical under the abuse of discretion standard.

2024As previously stated, the court commented, “A number of these examples that the Court just put on the record very well could qualify as reasonable inferences derived from the evidence presented, as Juror [No. 4] indicated to the Court when the Court had an opportunity to ask her questions individually, but certainly not all of them would fall under that exception.” As such, it is not clear from the record which, if any, of these concerns formed the basis for the trial court’s conclusion that Juror No. 4 failed to engage in deliberations, and “‘[u]nder the demonstrable reality standard, … the r

2015(See e.g., People v. Leonard (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1370, 1409 .) In People v. Barnwell (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1038 , the Supreme Court held that “that the more stringent demonstrable reality standard is to be applied in review of juror removal cases.

2025(See, e.g., People v. Williams (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1244, 1262 (Williams); People v. Allen and Johnson (2011) 53 Cal.4th 60 , 69–70 (Allen and Johnson) [“The court may discharge a juror for good cause (see § 1089), which includes a failure to follow the court’s instructions [citation].”]; People v. Williams (2001) 25 Cal.4th 441, 448 [“A juror who refuses to follow the court’s instructions is ‘unable to perform his duty’ within the meaning of . . . section 1089.”].) Furthermore, “[a] juror who 16 violates his or her oath and the trial court’s instructions is guilty of misconduct.” (People v. Lint

2013It requires a showing that the court as trier of fact did rely on evidence that, in light of the entire record, supports its conclusion that bias was established.‖ (People v. Barnwell (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1038 , 1052–1053.) ―A juror who refuses to follow the court‘s instructions is ‗unable to perform his duty‘ within the meaning of . . . section 1089.‖ (People v. Williams (2001) 25 Cal.4th 441, 448 ; People v. Alexander (2010) 49 Cal.4th 846, 926 [a deliberating juror‘s refusal to follow the law set forth in the instructions constitutes a failure to perform the juror‘s duties and is a ground for

2024(People v. Duff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 527, 560 [].) So long as it does, ‘ “the court’s action will be upheld on appeal.” ’ ([People v. ]Sattiewhite[ (2014) 59 Cal.4th 446 ,] 486.)” ( Peterson, supra, 10 Cal.5th at pp. 472-473.) The demonstrable reality test is more comprehensive and less deferential than substantial evidence review.

2015Under the demonstrable reality standard, however, the reviewing court must be confident that the trial court’s conclusion is manifestly supported by evidence on which the court actually relied. [¶] In reaching that conclusion, the reviewing panel will consider not just the evidence itself, but also the record of reasons the court provides.’ ( Barnwell, supra, 41 Cal.4th at pp. 1052-1053.) ‘That heightened standard more fully reflects an appellate court’s obligation to protect a defendant’s fundamental rights to due process and to a fair trial by an unbiased jury.’ (Id. at p. 1052; see also Peo

2021(People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067 , 1158 24 (Guerra), overruled on another ground in People v. Rundle (2008) 43 Cal.4th 76, 151 .) However, “such review involves a ‘heightened standard [that] more fully reflects an appellate court’s obligation to protect a defendant’s fundamental rights to due process and to a fair trial by an unbiased jury.’” (People v. Armstrong (2016) 1 Cal.5th 432, 450 (Armstrong), quoting People v. Barnwell (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1038, 1052 (Barnwell).) “Specifically, the juror’s ‘inability to perform’ his or her duty ‘must appear in the record as a demonstrable reality

2008(People v. Barnwell (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1038, 1052-1053 [ 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 82 , 162 P.3d 596 ] [explicitly holding that more stringent “demonstrable reality” standard is applicable in juror removal cases]; see also People v. Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1158 .) The demonstrable reality test “requires a showing that the court as trier of fact did rely on evidence that, in light of the entire record, supports its conclusion that [disqualification] was established.” (People v. Barnwell, supra, 41 Cal.4th at pp. 1052-1053.) To determine whether the trial court’s conclusion is “manifestly supported

2016(See People v. Roberts, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 325 .) “The record supports the juror’s disqualification for illness as a demonstrable reality, and no further inquiry was required under the circumstances.” (People v. Williams, supra, 58 Cal.4th at p. 293 ; see, e.g., People v. Duff, supra, 58 Cal.4th at pp. 559-561; People v. Smith, supra, 35 Cal.4th at pp. 348-349 & cases cited.) “The demonstrable reality test does not demand of trial judges confronted with sick jurors that they elicit conclusive proof of the length of future incapacitation . . . .

2014By statute, illness is cause to dismiss a juror. (§ 1089; People v. Roberts (1992) 2 Cal.4th 271, 324 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 276 , 826 P.2d 274 ].) The demonstrable reality test does not demand of trial judges confronted with sick jurors that they elicit conclusive proof of the length of future incapacitation; judges are lawyers, not doctors. 15 Nor does it demand that incapacitation exceed some preset length; in the right circumstances, an absence of a day or less may warrant excusal.