People v. Wright (First Dist., Div. One): Affirming a Murder Verdict despite Erroneous Instructions and a Facebooking Juror (LOL)?

A synoptic overview of this case is as follows.  Wright was initially tried for first-degree murder and the lesser-related shooting into a car.  At her first trial, the jury was correctly instructed, deliberated for 10 days, submitted questions to the judge asking for clarification on certain instructions, and eventually hung on the murder count, finding Wright guilty of shooting into the car.  At the retrial, the judge, based on legal reasoning that would rightfully earn the scorn of a law professor accustomed to first year law students, misinstructed the jury, which then deliberated less than a day before finding Wright guilty of first degree murder. 

 The second jury, which received the erroneous instructions, included a woman who engaged in conversations about the trial on her Facebook page during the trial including, “Yeah, my mind is already made up so I am FBing. LOL!”. 

In a 2-1 decision, a panel of First District finds the trial court’s failure to properly instruct the jury was harmless, as was the misconduct of the juror.

This is not a case that inspires confidence in California’s legal system.   

Ms. Wright shot and killed her ex-boyfriend/babydaddy, Mr. Green, after he had arrived home from work and parked his car.  Their relationship had been tumultuous, on-and-off, and had produced a child.  Wright suffered severe depression and had tried to top herself twice in the past.  Wright once had an abortion at Green’s request and Green had put his hands on her while she was pregnant.  Now separated, the two fought over custody of their son.  Green insulted Wright’s parenting and threatened to gain full custody of their son. 

At the second trial the court refused to give instructions on provocation-second degree murder and heat of passion-manslaughter (instructions both given at the first trial), believing the first jury’s guilty verdict on the car shooting charge somehow operated as collateral estoppel as to Wright’s mental state. These instructional omissions are held to be erroneous, but harmless, given the second jury’s finding that the laying-in-wait allegation was true.

As to the Facebook-posting juror, the panel agrees with the trial court that the juror “didn’t think what she was doing was wrong” and did not “disregard her duty as a juror”.  In the juror’s words, “she had not been using her good judgment since her husband’s recent death”.   I guess this fact wasn't divulged during jury selection.