Jury Member’s Reenactment of Drive-By Shooting Outside Courtroom Ruled Prejudicial Misconduct; Court Grants New Trial – CPC 246, CPC 186.22(b)(1)
On January 24, 2011, in People v. Vigil, the California Court of Appeal found that a juror committed prejudicial misconduct by reenacting the alleged criminal acts outside of the other juror’s presence and reporting his findings to the other jurors. The court of appeal held that the defendant must have a new trial.
In June 2007, defendant Kyle Vigil was the driver in two alleged gang shootings. The prosecution claimed Vigil knew that the shootings would occur before they happened, thereby making him criminally culpable. The jury agreed, sentencing him to 15 years to life for shooting into an occupied residence (PC 246) with a gang enhancement (PC 186.22(b)(1)).
After trial, Vigil’s defense attorney discussed the trial with the jurors and determined that, after a day of jury deliberation, Juror number 2 reenacted one of the shootings from the inside of his car using a broomstick instead of a rifle. This reenactment convinced Juror 2 that Vigil must have known the shooting would occur, and he told his fellow jurors about his reenactment and his conclusion.
Vigil’s attorney moved for a new trial, which the trial court denied. The court of appeal reversed the denial and ordered the trial court to grant a new trial.
The court of appeal set forth the basic analysis: the court must find admissible evidence to show that misconduct occurred, and the misconduct was prejudicial. The court of appeal found that Juror 2’s reenactment and subsequent disclosure of the reenactment and his conclusions to the jurors constituted misconduct. The court stated that Juror 2’s reenactment did not seem to account for the specific vehicle Vigil drove, his height and weight, whether he was right- or left-handed, the lighting conditions, or other relevant facts that a defense attorney would have questioned.
The court of appeal found the misconduct prejudicial because, up to the point when Juror 2 told the other jurors of his reenactment, the jury had been struggling with determining Vigil’s knowledge prior to the crime. Plus, Juror 2 was a college professor, so the other jurors were likely to hold his opinion in high regard. Based on these facts, the court of appeal held that defendant must be given a new trial.
Wallin & Klarich Can Help
If someone you know has been convicted but wishes to explore an appeal, contact a Wallin & Klarich criminal appeal lawyer today. Our attorneys can review the facts and determine whether any mistakes occurred that prejudiced your rights. To win on appeal, you need an attorney who will review the trial transcripts and investigate other potential bases for appeal, such as the government withholding evidence or juror misconduct. An appeal may result in a reversal of your conviction, a new trial, or a sentence reduction, so consult with an attorney to determine any grounds for appeal.
With offices in Los Angeles, Sherman Oaks, Torrance, Tustin, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, West Covina and Victorville, there is a Wallin & Klarich attorney experienced in federal crimes near you no matter where you work or live.
Call us today at (877) 4-NO-JAIL or (877) 466-5245 for a free phone consultation. We will be there when you call.
