Juror Misconduct (PC 1089)

PC 1089 sets for the procedure for removing a sitting juror. (People v. Boyette (2002) 29 Cal.4th 381, 462.)
Good Cause to exists to discharge a juror when:
- Juror loses his or her ability to render a fair and impartial verdict based on the evidence presented at trial. (People v. Warren (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 324, 327.)
- Juror who refuses to deliberate, on the theory that such a juror is ‘unable to perform his duty.’ (People v. Cleveland (2001) 25 Cal.4th 466, 474.)
- Juror who is actually biased is unable to perform the duty to fairly deliberate and is subject to discharge. (People v. Barnwell (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1038, 1051.)
Demonstrable Reality. A juror’s ‘inability to perform’ his or her duty must appear on the record as a demonstrable reality. (People v. Compton (1971) 6 Cal.3d 55, 60.)
Refusal to Deliberate. Consists of a juror’s unwillingness to engage in the deliberative process; that is, he or she will not participate in discussions with fellow jurors by listening to their views and by expressing his or her own views. (People v. Barton (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 496, 510-511.)
- Expressing a fixed conclusion at the beginning of deliberations and refusing to consider other points of view
- Refusing to speak to other jurors
- Attempting to separate oneself physically from the remainder of the jury
Not a refusal to deliberate:
- Juror who relies upon faulty logic
- Disagrees with the majority of the jury as to what the evidence shows
- Disagrees with the majority of the jury as to how the law should applies to the facts
- Disagrees with the majority as to the manner in which deliberations should be conducted
- A juror who has participated in deliberations for a reasonable period of time may not be discharged for refusing to deliberate, simply because the juror expresses the belief that further discussion will not alter his or her views. (People v. Cleveland (2001) 25 Cal.4th 466, 485.)
Bias.
- Actual bias is “the existence of a state of mind on the part of the juror in reference to the case, or to any of the parties, which will prevent the juror from acting with entire impartiality, and without prejudice to the substantial rights of any party. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 225, subd. (b)(1)(C).)
- An impartial juror is someone “capable and willing to decide the case solely on the evidence presented at trial.” (People v. Nesler (1997) 16 Cal.4th 561, 581.)
- Bias in a juror misconduct process means “a tendency to unreasonably favor one aspect of the case over others, separate and apart from the juror’s consideration of the evidence and the law applicable to the case.” (TRC Operating Co., Inc. v. Chevron USA, Inc. (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1087.)
- Bias Against Law Enforcement. A juror “who is biased against law enforcement is unable to perform his or her duty within the meaning of section 1089 and may be removed. (People v. McGhee (2025) 17 Cal.5th 612; People v. Barnwell (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1038, 1051.)
Procedure
- Step 1: (optional) Trial court reinstructs jurors regarding their duty to deliberate and to permit the jury to continue deliberations before making further inquiries.
- Step 2: court conducts a reasonable inquiry into allegations of misconduct “where the court possesses information which, if proven to be true, would constitute ‘good cause’ to doubt a juror’s ability to perform his duties and would justify his removal from the case.” (People v. Cleveland (2001) 25 Cal.4th 466, 478.)
  - Inquiry focuses on whether jurors’ testimony supports the conclusion that a juror is refusing to deliberate. (People v. Barton (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 496, 510.)