People v. Johnson (4th Dist. Div.2): A Commendable Correction

A jury convicted Mr. Johnson of felony DUI causing injury.  As Johnson was found to have suffered two prior strikes, two nickel priors, and a prior prison term, he was sentenced to 41 years to life.  

Approximately one year after the verdict, Johnson moved the court for release of the jurors' identifying information (Cal. Code Civ. Pro. 237) based upon declarations from Johnson's mother and step-father.  The step-father's declaration stated that one day after the verdict, three of the jurors contacted him and stated that some of the jurors were wondering during deliberations why Johnson did not take the stand if he were innocent.  The trial court denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing and Johnson appealed.

In the first appeal (this post concerns the second), a panel of the Fourth District reversed the trial court's denial of Johnson's motion to disclose juror information without holding an evidentiary hearing because the step-father's declaration, if taken as true, did make out a prima facie case of juror misconduct, and the trial court's finding otherwise was error.  The panel remanded the case for the trial court to make a credibility determination as to the veracity of step-father's declaration and if found credible, to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding Johnson's motion.

The trial court found step-father's declaration was not credible and again denied Johnson's motion without an evidentiary hearing.  Johnson appealed once again.

And the Fourth District reverses again; this time because they erred in directing the trial court to make a credibility determination before holding a hearing on Johnson's motion.  The declaration, taken on its face, contained facts evincing juror misconduct.  This is the statutory trigger for an evidentiary hearing.  By injecting a credibility determination, the Court of Appeal got it wrong on the first appeal.

Commendably, the panel acknowledges the error and corrects it.  To quote the opinion, "better late than never."  The case is remanded with directions that the trial court hold the evidentiary hearing required.