Metropolitan News-Enterprise

 

Thursday, December 8, 2022

 

Page 1

 

New Trial Not Required Where It Emerges That Juror Was Seeking Job at D.A.’s Office—C.A.

 

By a MetNews Staff Writer

 

A defendant, convicted of sex offenses, was not entitled to a new trial based on a recent revelation to him by the prosecutor that a juror, at the time of trial, had an application pending for employment by the District Attorney’s Office, Div. Three of the First District Court of Appeal held yesterday.

Justice Carin T. Fujisaki authored the opinion which affirms the conviction of Johnny Carabajal on three counts of contacting or communicating with a minor with the intent to commit a sex offense. In a portion of the opinion that was certified for publication, she said that Solano Superior Court Judge Carlos R. Gutierrez made the right call in denying a new trial.

Juror No. 5 had applied for employment with the Solano County District Attorney’s Office on Jan. 8, 2020. The following day, the jury turned in its verdict.

The former juror was hired in June as a victim-witness advocate, and that month, the prosecutor advised the defendant of the fact.

Gutierrez held a hearing at which Juror No. 5 testified, disclaiming bias.

That hearing, Fujisaki said, “was not an ineffectual remedy in protecting defendant’s right to an impartial jury,” explaining:

“Rather the trial court and counsel engaged in effective questioning that elicited detailed testimony providing the context for Juror No. 5’s actions and a sound factual basis from which the court could find that her decision to apply to the prosecuting agency was not connected to and did not impact her jury service. From this, the trial court could reasonably conclude that Juror No. 5 remained ‘capable and willing to decide the case solely on the evidence before’ her…, and that therefore defendant’s constitutional right to an impartial jury was not violated.”

Fujisaki declared that “the instant matter does not present an extraordinary case in which bias should be implied as a matter of law.”

The case is People v. Carabajal, A162212.

 

Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company