People v. Wiggins, 2025 Slip Op. 06539 (Nov. 25, 2026)

Issue before the Court: Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to grant a mistrial after conducting a Buford inquiry in response to a juror’s allegations of racial bias displayed by other jurors.

Facts: This shooting case relied, in part, on surveillance video in which it was difficult to make out the faces of the participants. Juror 5, the only juror of color, submitted a note about a variety of topics but, as relevant here, relaying that a juror said it was unnecessary to watch the video again during deliberations because all black people look the same in the dark. When the court inquired of Juror 5, she confirmed that Juror 10 made the comment and described additional racially biased comments by other jurors, estimating six had been involved in the conversation. Juror 5 further suggested that, after she had confronted them, they apologized and were working on it and she hoped, but couldn’t guarantee, that the bias had been eliminated. Juror 10 denied making the comment “in that way” and suggested they were discussing the poor video quality. Defense counsel rejected the opportunity to question other jurors and moved for a mistrial.

Held: Deferring to the trial court’s assessment of the adequacy of the juror’s explanations in response during the Buford inquiry, it was not an abuse of discretion to deny the requested mistrial and defense counsel did not seek any alternative remedy (further questioning of any juror, replacement of offending jurors with alternates, etc.).

CAL Observes: If the trial court conducts a Buford inquiry, a defendant faces an incredibly uphill battle challenging the resulting remedy or lack thereof. The majority frames its decision as one of deference and remedies, but both are doing a lot of work here. While it may be that Juror 10’s answers didn’t make it “obvious” she was “grossly unqualified,” Rivera penning a solo dissent, asks what more a defense attorney can do in this situation. Additional questioning of a juror is unlikely to reveal racial bias more clearly and may ultimately prove counterproductive. Bringing in the other jurors for questioning—something defense counsel explicitly declined—could have the same effect.

The majority was prepared to give Juror 10 the benefit of the doubt regarding the denials, though Rivera highlighted aspects of her responses that were “evasive” to the point of suggesting she probably had said exactly what Juror 5 claimed. Ultimately, both the majority and Rivera acknowledge that it can be challenging to have explicit discussions regarding racial bias. While the majority would brush it aside unless a juror says something blatantly racist on the record (or perhaps, asks for an intermediate remedy that wasn’t practically available here), Rivera would flip the burden given the importance of a guaranteeing a jury free from racial bias.