California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Lavender, D057655, D057686 (Cal. App. 2012):
In the second step, the court must examine the admissible evidence assembled during the first step to determine whether misconduct occurred. Where the admissible evidence raises a strong possibility that misconduct has occurred, the trial court also has discretion to determine whether to conduct an evidentiary hearing to resolve factual disputes raised by the claim of juror misconduct. (People v. Avila (2006) 38 Cal.4th 491, 604.) A defendant is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing "as a matter of right. Such a hearing should be held only when the court concludes an evidentiary hearing is 'necessary to resolve material, disputed issues of fact.' [Citation.] 'The hearing . . . should be held only when the defense has come forward with evidence demonstrating a strong possibility that prejudicial misconduct has occurred. Even upon such a showing, an evidentiary hearing will generally be unnecessary unless the parties' evidence presents a material conflict that can only be resolved at such a hearing.' " (Ibid.)
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.