◆ SpookStack

No. 16077 closes a situation, totally different from the facts of the present case, There the trial court refused to consider Specific affidavits by Jurors establishing highly prejudicial : |Sheppard v. Maxwell. such examination. Neglect of this opportunity to prove actual prejudice might itself be reason enough to deny relief in the absence of any present showing of actual prejudice, compare United States v. Gersh, 328 F(2) 460 (CA 2, 1964), cert. denied sub nom. Mugnola v. United States, 377 U.S. 992 (1964). Going beyond this possibility, it is worthy of note that even on direct review of federal} convictions where improper communications have been had; with a juror, “it is well settled that what is prejudicial to! a fair trial when the issue of ‘juror misconduct’ is raised, 1s a matter that must, to a large extent, be left to the; discretion of a trial court and that an appellate court will not reverse the determination of that court on such an issue unless it is established as clearly erroneous.” Little v. United States, 331 F(2) 287, 295 (CA 8, 1964), cert, . 2, 1963), cert, denied, 375 US. 835, 836 (1963) ; Steiner v. United States, 229 F(2) 745, 748-49 (CA 9, 1956), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 953, 100 L. Ed. 1476 (1956); Ryan vy, United States, 191 F(2) 779 (CA. D.C. 1951), cert, denied, 342 U.S, 928, 96 L. Ed. 691 (1952) ; Cavness v. United States, 187 F(2) 719, 723 (CA 9, 1951), cert. denied, 841 U.S. 951, 95 L. Ed. 1374 (1951). The showing that communications were had with the jurors, accordingly, is not of itself enough to demonstrate a denial] , of due process. So in Near y. Cunningham, 313 F(2) 929, (hab prejudicial statements were made in the presence ring of the jurors,” the habeas corpus court must reach its-constitutional decision “in the light of all of the surrounding circumstances.” Here there is no pretense at showing that prejudicial statements were made to the jurors by their children or Spouses. The presumption that the jurors remained true to their instructions is fortified Kahaner, 317 F(2) 459, 482-83 (GA - No. 16077 Sheppard v. Maxwell 45 by petitioner’s neglect of his opportunity to show that the jurors chose. this particular opportunit; among many to violate their instructions. In view of the absence of any attempt to demonstrate or even claim such violations here, we are satisfied that the Ohio Supreme Court correctly disposed of this issue, and that in any event the occurrence does not present a denial of constitutional due process, he Supreme Court’s recent decision in Turner Vv. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466 (1965) does not affect decision of this question, The Court was there dealing with 2 conviction following three days’ “continuous and inti- mate association” between the jury and two keys wit- nesses for the prosecution, who were also deputy sheriffs. Dispensing with the requirement that improper communi- cations be shown in such a situation cannot be related to the present situation, where we are shown only that some members of the jury made brief telephone calls to members of their families with whom they had, quite properly, been in continuous association throughout the trial, 5) Other questions. of justice.’ Without further discussion, we are unable to attribute to a combination of these several claims a con- stitutional potency they lack individually. We have re- jected the claims based on publicity, alleged bias of the trial judge, and communications with the jurors because no showing has been made that anything improper in fact occurred; we are no more willing to presume infirmity when these claims and the matter of the lie detector eyj- dence are listed together than when they are considered Separately. Petitioner’s brief to this court suggests that if we find granting the writ “such action would require a remand for further factual determination of the remaining points.” Counsel urges, in the alternative, that we pass upon these remaining points not relied on by the District J udge, and as to them petitioner “will stand upon the argument addressed to them in the Brief for Petitioner in the District Court,” Without passing upon the procedural propriety of these