Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 3
Court of Appeal:
No Duty to Find Out What Caused Juror to Lose Impartiality
Opinion Rejects View That Judge Was Obligated to Find Out What Was Said to Dismissed Panelist Who Indicated That She Lost Ability to Be Fair Based on Undisclosed Comment by Another Member of Jury, Drawing Dissent
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. One of the Fourth District Court of Appeal yesterday upheld, in a divided opinion, the first-degree murder conviction of a man who argued that his right to a fair trial was undermined by a judge’s failure to adequately investigate the circumstances surrounding a juror’s dismissal from the panel after deliberations had begun.
The unpublished majority opinion, authored by Justice David M. Rubin and joined in by Justice Julia C. Kelety, rejects the view that the trial judge was obligated to discover the details about what was said by another member of the jury to cause the dismissed panelist to say that she could no longer be fair and impartial.
Rubin highlighted the importance of preserving the secrecy of deliberations and declared:
“Here, an unknown juror made a ‘general statement’ during deliberations, causing Juror No. 9 to doubt her impartiality. Although the trial court was not aware of what the unknown juror said, one juror’s statement causing another to question herself does not necessarily imply misconduct.”
Acting Presiding Justice William Dato dissented, arguing:
“Juror No. 9’s disclosure was handled like a hot potato. Although questioning jurors in midst of deliberations must be conducted with some sensitivity, a court cannot sidestep that challenge by pretending there isn’t a problem….Here, the judge quickly decided to discharge Juror No. 9, but then declined to ask her what was the nature of the statement made during deliberations that caused her to lose her impartiality and, if appropriate, whether that statement might have similarly affected other jurors….Exploring those questions…was ‘a necessary step to preserve defendant’s right to a fair jury trial.’ ”
2021 Killing
The question arose after Steven Ambriz was charged with the December 2021 killing of Jordan Schmidt, whose body was discovered near an Imperial County cemetery. Following a 2024 trial, Juror N. 9 sent a note asking to speak with the judge about “a concern regarding continuing to serve on this jury.”
After Imperial Superior Court Judge Christopher J. Plourd asked her what happened, she indicated that another juror made a “general comment” during deliberations that made her “feel…unable to remain impartial.” He pressed the panelist, saying:
“All right. Now, impartiality talks about bias against people and—and other things related to the jury process. That’s what you’re talking about. You don’t feel you can follow that instruction?”
She responded affirmatively, and Plourd found good cause to excuse the juror. The judge also denied Ambriz’s requests for further examination of Juror No. 9 and an examination of the remaining panelists.
An alternate was appointed, and the new panel found Ambriz guilty of premeditated first-degree murder, among other charges. Plourd sentenced the defendant to an aggregate of 70 years to life in prison.
Following the verdict, Ambriz requested that the court unseal contact information for the discharged juror. Plourd denied that request as well as a subsequent motion for a new trial.
Adequate Investigation
Rubin noted:
“Ambriz claims that because another juror’s comment caused Juror No. 9 to doubt her impartiality, it called into question whether that other juror committed misconduct and whether that misconduct affected the remainder of the jurors.”
Rejecting that view, the jurist pointed out that the decision whether to investigate juror misconduct rests in the sound discretion of the judge and opined:
“[N]o other jurors expressed concerned with the comment….[A]fter informing the jury that Juror No. 9 had been excused, the trial court told the jurors to inform the court if they had any problem following the court’s instructions. Despite this direction, no other juror reported anything about the general comment that caused Juror No. 9 to doubt her impartiality.”
He continued:
“Unlike the cases upon which Ambriz relies, the trial court was not faced with circumstances where improper or external influences can be readily inferred….Additionally, ‘it was reasonable for the trial court to proceed on the belief that any other juror who might have been affected by [the general comment] would call that circumstance to the court’s attention, rather than the court suspending the trial in the midst of [deliberations] to undertake a [further] inquiry on the subject.’ We…see no abuse of discretion.”
He rejected the defendant’s assertions of prosecutorial error and declared:
“The judgment is affirmed.”
Dato’s View
Dato wrote:
“When the trial court becomes aware of the possibility one or more jurors may have been subject to improper influences that could affect their impartiality, it has a ‘duty to make whatever inquiry is reasonably necessary’ to determine (1) if the affected juror(s) should be discharged, and (2) ‘whether the impartiality of other jurors has been affected.’ ”
Applying the standard, he argued:
“The trial court here resolved the level one inquiry to its satisfaction by questioning Juror No. 9 and concluding she could no longer be impartial….The problem is that the questioning…shed no light on what the statement maker said, whether the statement was heard by and affected any other juror, and whether the statement itself constituted misconduct. But the mere fact a statement was made by a juror that destroyed the ability of at least one other juror to be impartial was enough to require additional investigation.”
Saying that “the court should have at least” made “a limited inquiry as to what was said to” Juror No. 9 after she was dismissed, he opined:
“[E]ven if interfering with ongoing jury deliberations was initially a legitimate concern, it largely evaporated once Juror No. 9 was discharged and the reconstituted jury began deliberating with an alternate juror….It then could have decided if further questioning of any deliberating juror was warranted.”
Alleged Misconduct
Continuing, he added:
“The alleged juror misconduct in this case is all about what we don’t know. An unidentified juror made a statement during deliberations, the content and context of which is unknown. All we do know is that the statement caused one of the other jurors…to believe she could no longer be fair and impartial. Accepting this assessment as accurate, the trial court discharged Juror No. 9…But it made no attempt to ascertain anything about what was said and, most importantly, whether the impartiality of other jurors might have been affected.”
He declared:
“Not only did the trial court fail to adequately investigate the possibility of juror misconduct when it first became aware of it, but it then compounded its initial error by refusing to release contact information for Juror No. 9 so that Ambriz could interview Juror No. 9 in support of his motion for new trial. Under these circumstances, the lack of information resulting from the court’s failure to conduct an appropriate inquiry cannot be deemed harmless,…and I believe we have no choice but to reverse the convictions.”
The case is People v. Ambriz, D084906.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company