Does anyone else see the potential problems with this bill?

e.g. Defendant found guilty, goes on to punishment, then juror gets ill, replaced by alternate who never would have found defendant guilty in the first place.

Here's another question: where do the alternates wait and what do they do while the regular jurors deliberate? It's going to require mini-sequestration, most likely. That'll be fun.

Seems to me the defendant could make a good argument that he was entitled, under the constitution, to get a unanimous verdict from the same 12 jurors on guilt and punishment, or at least not have a new face on punishment only.

The bill is a bad idea. Alternate jurors should be excused once deliberations begin. Sounds like an idea from California.

Actually I think it came from our county, from a murder case where after dismissing the alternates after a week long trial upon the reading of the G/I charge, one of our "real" jurors became incapacitated.

What would be the difference between that and having a totally different jury when a case gets sent back for punishment only. All 12 of those "new" jurors might have wanted to vote NG on the original trial but that's not what they are there for. At least the alternate heard all the original facts as the other 11.

You are in California?

1750 miles to the East, but just as beautiful

At this point, our judges are going to allow the alternate jurors to be in the jury room while deliberations are taking place. Their feeling is that, should this alternate juror be required to step up, he/she then won't have to "catch up" with the others in the deliberative process. Doesn't this really seem like a bad idea, or am I just missing something?

That is the worst idea I have heard in a long time. "No person shall be permitted to be with the jury while it is deliberating." Tex. Code Crim. Pro. art. 36.22.

The alternate is not part of the jury.

Geez, this is a bad law.

I have to agree with JB, I think putting the alternate (before he becomes the 12th juror) in the deliberations is a no-no under the statatue.

However, I still haven't seen a response to my argument, how is one person different than 12 who might hear just punishment on remand ?

Not bad (yet), just new

We're looking at this now. Looks like the Feds and various other states keep the alternates separate until they are needed, then restart deliberations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Hess:
At this point, our judges are going to allow the alternate jurors to be in the jury room while deliberations are taking place. Their feeling is that, should this alternate juror be required to step up, he/she then won't have to "catch up" with the others in the deliberative process. Doesn't this really seem like a bad idea, or am I just missing something?

---

Bad idea.

I'll bet wherever this idea comes from does not have our separate punishment phase or jury punishment.

[This message was edited by JohnR on 08-29-07 at .]

In California, the judge sentences the defendant. See Cal. Pen. Code s. 1170 et seq.; see also Cunningham v. California, 127 S.Ct. 856 (2007) (Apprendi-Blakely-Booker-ing the determinate sentencing law).

"...not that there's anything wrong with that." Seinfeld, "The Outing" (NBC television broadcast Feb. 11, 1993).

I agree that allowing the alternate to be in the jury room during deliberations is a bad idea and may constitute an outside influence necessitating a new trial.

But here is my question - what do you actually do with the alternate while the jury is deliberating? Do they have to remain physically in the courtroom? the courthouse? Or can they be "on call"???

My initial thought was that they should be found a comfortable place to wait in the courthouse. I explained my thoughts to a good judge, who plans to let these poor folks go home or to work, with supplmental instructions, in the event.

Does anyone have an example of some supplemental instructions given to alternate, "sequestered" jurors who are not part of deliberations?

Can try to post some tomorrow that were derived from some California instructions.

... or risk reversal.

Trinidad v. State (4th COA)

If I was the prosecutor or victim's family in this case, I can't tell you how #&^%@ angry I'd be at the bailiff in this case.

Mistrial

Yeah, the CCA has recently decided to take up the Trinidad (and Adams) cases, so we should get something from them on this soon. Here's a link to a blog post about the issue granting and the cases.