California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Flanigan, F068332 (Cal. App. 2015):
"[W]hen a criminal defendant moves for a new trial based on allegations of jury misconduct, the trial court has discretion to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the truth of the allegations. We stress, however, that the defendant is not entitled to such a hearing as a matter of right." (People v. Hedgecock (1990) 51 Cal.3d 395, 415.) "'The hearing should not be used as a "fishing expedition" to search for possible misconduct, but should be held only when the defense has come forward with evidence demonstrating a strong possibility that prejudicial misconduct has occurred. Even [then], an evidentiary hearing will generally be unnecessary unless the parties' evidence presents a material conflict that can only be resolved at such a hearing.'" (People v. Duran (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 103, 113.)
Page 15
"'We review a trial court's ruling on a motion for a new trial under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.' [Citations.] '"A trial court's ruling on a motion for new trial is so completely within that court's discretion that a reviewing court will not disturb the ruling absent a manifest and unmistakable abuse of that discretion."'" (People v. Thompson (2010) 49 Cal.4th 79, 140.) Such an abuse is not present here.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.