P. v. Lamas CA4/14
Defendant Octavio Lamas appeals from the trial court’s denial of his request for a new trial following the discovery that the bailiff charged with safeguarding the jury was present for some portion of the jury’s deliberations. Defendant argues the bailiff’s presence during deliberations was per se prejudicial in violation of the federal and state Constitutions. The People agree that the bailiff’s presence during jury deliberations was error, but contend it created a rebuttable presumption of prejudice. Nevertheless, the People concede that the record does not support the trial court’s finding that the presumption of prejudice was rebutted, and ask us to remand the matter for further proceedings.
Comments on P. v. Lamas CA4/14