Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Leashaye Turman was charged with offenses arising from an armed robbery at a gas station and a drive-by shooting at a home, including attempted murder, evading an officer with reckless driving, felon firearm possession, ammunition possession, shooting at an occupied vehicle, shooting at an inhabited dwelling, robbery with personal firearm use, and receiving stolen property. A jury found him guilty on counts 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7; found him not guilty of count 5 as charged but guilty of the lesser included offense of shooting a firearm in a grossly negligent manner; found true firearm allegations on counts 6 and 7; and hung on counts 1, 8, and 9, prompting mistrials. The bifurcated gang allegation attached to count 6 also ended in a mistrial.
The People retried Turman on counts 1 and 9 after count 8 was dismissed. During deliberations, Juror No. 12 called the clerk and said he was not returning because of 'too many biases and the defendant not having a fair trial,' but he appeared and continued deliberating without objection. The jury acquitted on count 9 and hung 11 to 1 on count 1, with Juror No. 12 acknowledged as the lone holdout. Before the gang-allegation retrial, Juror No. 12 asked to speak privately and said he did not think he could continue; when asked whether he could be fair to both parties, he answered, 'I don't think I can.' The court excused him without follow-up questions and seated an alternate. The reconstituted jury found the gang allegation true, and the court sentenced Turman to 23 years to life on count 6 plus eight years on the remaining counts.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal held that the trial court abused its discretion twice. First, Juror No. 12's statement to the clerk that 'too many biases' denied Turman a fair trial, if true, constituted good cause to remove one or more jurors and therefore required a hearing under Penal Code section 1089 and People v. Barnwell. The court rejected the People's argument that Juror No. 12 did not understand 'bias,' noting his CALCRIM instructions on bias and implicit bias. Because the trial court made no inquiry into the factual basis of the allegation, that failure was an abuse of discretion, and Turman did not forfeit the claim because the court has an independent duty to investigate.
Second, the court held that Juror No. 12's equivocal 'I don't think I can' did not establish to a demonstrable reality that he was unable to perform his duties. Under People v. Armstrong, the record had to manifestly support the discharge; here Juror No. 12 never requested discharge or said he was unwilling to continue, and the court asked no follow-up question to resolve whether his answer reflected his own bias, concern about other jurors, or something else. The erroneous discharge required reversal of the gang-allegation true finding but did not bar retrial on double jeopardy grounds. The disposition reversed that finding, affirmed the judgment in all other respects, vacated the sentence, and remanded for full resentencing.
Key Takeaways
- When a deliberating juror reports that other jurors are biased and the defendant is not receiving a fair trial, the trial court must hold a hearing to investigate, even if the juror later continues deliberating and the parties do not object.
- A juror's equivocal answer such as 'I don't think I can' to a fairness question does not establish to a demonstrable reality that the juror cannot serve, especially without a discharge request or clarifying follow-up questions.
- Review of juror discharge under Penal Code section 1089 uses the heightened demonstrable reality standard: the appellate court must have confidence that the trial court's conclusion was manifestly supported by the evidence and reasons actually relied on.
- Failing to investigate a juror's bias report and then discharging the reporting juror without resolving the ambiguity compounds the error and can require reversal of the resulting adverse finding.
- Erroneous discharge requires reversal but no double-jeopardy bar to retrial; here the court reversed only the gang-allegation true finding, affirmed otherwise, vacated the sentence, and remanded for full resentencing.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the trial court's affirmative duty to investigate credible mid-deliberation allegations of juror bias and protects the constitutional right to an unbiased jury. It also clarifies that a court cannot remove the juror who raises fairness concerns without first determining whether the concern reflects that juror's own inability to be impartial or misconduct by others.
The mixed disposition matters for sentencing: because the gang-allegation true finding was reversed while the convictions otherwise stood, the entire sentence was vacated and the matter remanded for full resentencing rather than a limited correction.