If you learn that a sitting juror searched the case online, heard an outsider’s account, or shared facts that were not admitted in court, tell your defense lawyer promptly. Preserve what was found and when, how it reached the juror, and whether it was shared with others. Do not contact the juror yourself. The judge considers the specific information and circumstances; a reported search does not automatically require removing a juror or ending the trial.
What to preserve for your lawyer
Write down the source of the information and how you learned about it. Save the exact webpage, post, message, recording, or other material if lawfully available, along with its URL and the date and time it was seen. Note what the juror said or did, when it happened, who heard it, and whether another juror received or repeated the information. Identify the disputed issue, witness, or fact the material concerns. These details help counsel explain why the exposure matters without asking jurors to discuss their private thought processes.
California jurors are instructed not to investigate the case, obtain outside information, or communicate about it, including electronically. The court gives those instructions before trial and at adjournments (Penal Code section 1122). If a juror reports an attempted improper influence, the statute also addresses reporting it to the court.
What the judge may consider during trial
Counsel can present the preserved material to the judge and ask for an appropriate on-record inquiry. The scope should fit the reported exposure. An unverified concern does not guarantee a particular investigation or remedy.
The California Supreme Court has explained that outside information about a party or the case can create a rebuttable presumption of prejudice. The assessment is fact-specific: the source and nature of the information, its connection to disputed issues, whether it was disclosed to other jurors, and the circumstances of exposure all matter. Inadvertent exposure is not automatically harmless, but neither does every exposure require a mistrial or a new trial. (People v. Nesler (1997) 16 Cal.4th 561, opinion.)
A juror may be discharged for good cause if the juror cannot perform the duty, and the statute governs when an alternate may take that juror’s place (Penal Code section 1089). A report that a juror saw outside information is not, by itself, a finding that the juror must be discharged. The judge must assess what happened and the proper response on the record.
If the information is discovered after the verdict
The postverdict question is different from managing a sitting jury. A new-trial motion may raise specified grounds, including a jury receiving evidence out of court or misconduct that prevented fair consideration (Penal Code section 1181). For that inquiry, California limits proof to objectively ascertainable statements, conduct, or events likely to have influenced the verdict; jurors’ subjective mental processes are not admissible (Evidence Code section 1150). Whether those rules support relief depends on the record and the particular exposure.
Keep the material and your timeline, and give them to counsel rather than approaching jurors or posting about the event. The Law Offices of David S. Chesley can review the trial record and explain the available next steps. Call (800) 755-5174, or see the firm’s criminal trial overview.