In Goody v. Spearman, --- F.3d ---, No. 13-56024 (9th Cir. 2017), the en banc Court reversed the district court's denial of a habeas petition.
The defendant was convicted of murder in California. He filed a new trial motion alleging one of the jurors was in continuous contact with a "judge friend" about the case and shared information from the judge with the other jurors.
The California courts rejected the petitioner's claims about this conduct, as did the district court.
The unanimous en banc Court disagreed.
The Court reiterated the two-step process "when faced with
allegations of improper contact between a juror and an outside party."
At step one, the court asks whether the contact was “possibly prejudicial,” meaning it had a “tendency” to be “injurious to the defendant.” If so, the contact is “deemed presumptively prejudicial” and the court proceeds to step two, where the “burden rests heavily upon the [state] to establish” the contact was, in fact, “harmless.” If the state does not show harmlessness, the court must grant the defendant a new trial. When the presumption arises but the prejudicial effect of the contact is unclear from the existing record, the trial court must hold a “hearing” to “determine the circumstances [of the contact], the impact thereof upon the juror, and whether or not it was prejudicial.”
Because the process was not followed, the Court remanded with instructions to hold an evidentiary hearing on the misconduct and its prejudicial
effect.
