California Penal Code § 95 addresses a corrupt attempt to influence a juror or another specified decision maker about a verdict or decision in a pending or imminent proceeding. It does not make every conversation about a case a § 95 crime. If you face this count, begin with the exact charging paper, who was contacted, what was said or delivered, and how the prosecution says it was meant to affect that proceeding. The statute concerns an attempt; a changed verdict is not an element stated in its text.
Who can be the target of the alleged attempt?
Section 95 names a juror, a person summoned or drawn as a juror, a chosen arbitrator or umpire, and an appointed referee. The alleged influence must concern that person’s verdict or decision in a cause or proceeding pending or about to be brought before that person. This is different from a trial party asking the court to investigate outside information that reached a jury. The alleged recipient’s role, the proceeding and the timing matter. Compare the accusation with the summons, assignment, court papers and complete communication; do not assume that a recipient was a sitting trial juror merely because the complaint uses that label. See the full § 95 text.
What conduct and purpose does § 95 describe?
The statute begins with “corruptly attempts to influence a juror”—a short exact operative excerpt, not the complete statute. It then lists four ways the attempt may be made:
| Statutory means | Question to compare with the actual count |
|---|---|
| Oral or written communication outside the regular course of proceedings | What was communicated, to whom, when and through which channel? |
| A book, paper or other instrument exhibited outside the regular course of proceedings | What complete material was shown, and how did it reach the recipient? |
| Threat, intimidation, persuasion or entreaty | What words or acts are alleged, and what decision were they meant to affect? |
| Promise or assurance of pecuniary or other advantage | What advantage was claimed, promised or understood? |
These are alternatives in § 95(a)–(d), not four charges that automatically arise from one encounter. The statute’s § 7 definition of “corruptly” concerns a wrongful design to acquire or cause a pecuniary or other advantage. Thus, neither a cash payment nor a successful change in the decision is a universal requirement. Equally, the existence of a conversation alone does not establish the specified corrupt purpose. The complete words, circumstances and intended effect matter.
What could follow from a charge?
Section 95 states a fine of up to $10,000 or imprisonment pursuant to Penal Code § 1170(h). The cross-reference does not mean every case produces the same custody term or place of confinement. Section 1170(h) includes a default felony term when the offense supplies none, exceptions affecting placement and other authorized dispositions. Other filed counts and the actual record also matter. A statutory maximum is not a prediction about a case.
The firm’s criminal trial overview explains the broader court process. Keep the complete messages, attachments, delivery and account records, witness identities, court papers and any response as they existed. Do not delete material or contact a juror to clarify the exchange. The Law Offices of David S. Chesley can review an actual § 95 allegation and the surrounding case record with you. Contact the firm or call (800) 755-5174.