People v. Alaniz

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of defendant's motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct. In this case, the jurors' comments concerning defendant's decision not to testify did not show that the jurors conducted their own investigation or based their decision on anything other than the evidence introduced at trial. The court reasoned that, in general, a jury's consideration of the defense's failure to call logical witnesses was proper and did not impermissibly shift the burden of proof, the jury's consideration of defendant's failure to testify likewise could not have impermissibly shifted the burden of proof—he was a logical witness, so the same rule should apply. Furthermore, the trial court had no sua sponte duty to instruct the jury that it could not consider defendant's failure to testify. View "People v. Alaniz" on Justia Law