9th Cir.;
13-56024

The court of appeals reversed a district court judgment denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The court held that the state court deviated from clearly established law in rejecting the petitioner's claim of juror misconduct.

A Los Angeles jury found Enrique Godoy guilty of second-degree murder. A week prior to sentencing, Godoy moved for a new trial, alleging that Juror 10 had improperly communicated about the case with a judge friend. To substantiate his allegations, Godoy submitted the declaration of alternate juror E.M., who wrote that “during the course of the trial, juror number ten kept continuous communication with a gentleman up north, who she referred to as her “judge friend”…From the time of jury selection until the time of verdict, juror number ten would communicate with her 'judge friend' about the case via her [cell phone]. When the jury was not sure what was going on or what procedurally would happen next, juror number ten would communicate with her friend and disclose to the jury what he said.” The prosecution responded by arguing that the declaration failed to show juror misconduct because the alleged communications involved procedural issues only. The trial court denied Godoy's motion for new trial.