What is the legal test for removing a juror from a trial where the juror has been daubed with graffiti?

"'[W]hen a court is put "on notice that improper or external influences were being brought to bear on a juror . . . 'it is the court's duty to make whatever inquiry is reasonably necessary to determine if the juror should be discharged . . . .'" [Citation.] Such an inquiry is central to maintaining the integrity of the jury system, and therefore is central to the criminal defendant's right to a fair trial. [Citation.]' [Citation.] On the other hand, 'not every incident involving a juror's conduct requires or warrants further investigation. "The decision whether to investigate the possibility of juror bias, incompetence, or misconductlike the ultimate decision to retain or discharge a juror rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. [Citation.] . . . [] . . . [A] hearing is required only where the court possesses information which, if proven to be true, would constitute 'good cause' to doubt a juror's ability to perform his duties and would justify his removal from the case."'" (People v. Fuiava (2012) 53 Cal.4th 622, 702.)

Here, the juror never claimed to be intimidated by or concerned about the graffiti and the court could have reasonably recognized the danger in suggesting that to the juror. Thus, rather than hold a hearing to determine whether the one particular juror had been influenced by the graffiti, the court instructed all jurors that they could not use anything they had seen around the courtroom in determining whether defendant was guilty but must base their decision solely on the evidence presented at trial. It then asked the entire jury panel if any juror felt he or she could not follow those instructions. No one responded or gave any indication they could not, including the juror who brought the graffiti to the court's attention. "'Absent any contrary indication, we presume the jury followed the instruction[s]'" (People v. Williams (2010) 49 Cal.4th 405, 469) and because the court possessed no information that would have constituted good cause to

Page 5