Criminal
Jul. 20, 2002
Court Strikes Instruction to Report Jurors' Contrariety
SACRAMENTO - A standard jury instruction that requires jurors to report each other's refusal to deliberate or obey the law was banned Thursday by a sharply divided California Supreme Court.
Writing for the 4-3 majority in People v. Engelman, 2002 DJDAR 8034, Chief Justice Ronald M. George said the so-called snitch rule could harm the deliberative process of juries and he ordered that the instruction no longer be given in criminal trials in California.
"Directing the jury immediately before deliberations begin that jurors are expected to police the reasoning and arguments of their fellow jurors ... may curtail or distort deliberations," George wrote.
The court found no constitutional problems with the conviction in the case before it, however, because no jurors had come forward to report misconduct in the case.
George was joined in his opinion by Justices Joyce L. Kennard, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and Carlos R. Moreno.
The instruction, CALJIC No. 17.41.1, requires jurors to promptly notify the judge if one of their own "refuses to deliberate or expresses an intention to disregard the law or decide the case based on any improper basis."
Defense attorneys have argued that the instruction, which took effect in 1998, can create a coercive environment in the jury room, where jurors who disagree with the majority may be threatened with being reported to the judge. The instruction was also seen as a way for judges to ferret out jurors who engage in jury nullification, the practice of disregarding the law and instead voting one's conscience in appropriate cases.
"The problems that the instruction can create take place behind closed doors, so there's no way of knowing its true effect in those cases," said Kyle Marie Wesendorf, the Solana Beach sole practitioner who argued the case for defendant Tye John Engelman.
Wesendorf said she was disappointed the court did not reverse her client's conviction but was pleased the justices ruled in her favor on the issue of the jury instruction.
"The court recognized the risks to jury deliberations that this instruction creates," she said.
Prosecutors had argued that those risks were largely hypothetical, because there were few documented cases of the rule causing problems among jurors.
"We've had this instruction since 1998 and nothing of the kind of problems that the defense and the majority sees here ever occurred in all those four years," said Deputy Attorney General Peter Quon, Jr., who argued the case before the high court.
Agreeing with Quon's argument, Justice Marvin Baxter issued a biting dissent that criticized the majority for barring the instruction based on a "hypothesized risk that the instruction could be misunderstood or misused."
He said jurors need a clear rule that allows them to report problems to the judge.
Baxter also attacked the court's decision to use its rarely invoked "supervisory power" to ban the rule.
"I dissent generally from the invocation of our seldom used supervisory power to remedy de minimis concerns," he wrote. "I dissent specifically from the invocation of our supervisory power to condemn a useful and constitutionally permissible instruction merely because of a remote and shadowy risk of harm."
Baxter was joined in his dissent by Justices Ming W. Chin and Janice R. Brown.
In Engelman's trial on charges of robbery and assault with a deadly weapon, there was no holdout juror or any allegation that a juror intended to disregard the law.
Instead, Engelman simply alleged that his guilty verdict should have been overturned because the jury instruction infringed on his constitutional right "to the independent judgment of each juror."
The instruction was given by San Diego County Superior Court Judge Runston Maino over the objection of Engelman's trial attorney.
The 4th District Court of Appeal unanimously upheld Engelman's conviction, holding that the jury instruction was proper.
"Because jurors have a duty to follow the court's instructions ... an instruction so stating is unassailable," wrote Justice Don Work.
The Supreme Court then took up the Engelman case, putting a handful of similar cases on hold pending its outcome.
Quon contended that the high court's decision in Engelman is at least a partial victory for prosecutors, because the court simply banned the jury instruction from future use.
Prior convictions obtained in cases where the instruction was given are not in jeopardy, he said.
Hudson Sangree
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com