Tag Archives: Jury Deliberation


Substitution of Alternate Juror After Partial Verdict
July 5th, 2022

When an alternate juror is substituted during deliberations, CALCRIM 3575 should be given instructing the jurors to disregard the earlier deliberations. (See People v. Cain (1995) 10 C4th 1, 64-65.) However, a special problem is presented when the substitution occurs after a partial verdict has been rendered. In fact, it has been suggested that the […]


Tags: , , , ,


Improper Prosecutorial Statements That It Is Illegal for Jurors to Refuse to Deliberate and that Jurors Must Report any Such Refusal
September 30th, 2021

In People v. Morales (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 326 the prosecutor stated in closing argument that it was “illegal” for jurors to refuse to deliberate and admonished that the jurors must report the failure to deliberate, and allegedly conveyed that jurors had no power to engage in nullification.   The Court of Appeal held that the […]


Tags: ,


Dismissal of Deliberating Juror: “Great Caution” and “Heightened Standard of Review” are Required
August 20th, 2020

A trial court may dismiss a juror if the court finds the juror is “unable to perform his or her duty.” (PC 1089; People v. Armstrong (2016) 1 C5th 432, 450.) Dismissal may be appropriate, for example, when a juror is emotionally unable to continue or expresses a fixed conclusion at the beginning of deliberations […]


Tags: ,


Partial-Acquittal And Double Jeopardy: CSC Adheres To Defense-Favorable Rule
September 10th, 2019

Stone v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 503 recognized the “deceptively simple” yet “complex, rapidly expanding body of law” surrounding the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy arose from both the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, section 15 of the California Constitution. However, Blueford v. Arkansas (2012) 566 U.S. 599, 132 […]


Tags: , , , , , , , ,


Juror’s “Common Sense and Experience” May Not Override Presumption of Innocence
August 22nd, 2018

CC 105 and CC 226 — which tell the jurors to rely on their “common sense and experience” regarding their consideration of evidence – have been approved in an appellate ruling. (See People v. Campos (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1239-1241; see also People v. Centeno (2014) 60 Cal.4th 659, 669 [“jurors may rely on common knowledge […]


Tags: , , , , ,


Judge’s Duties When Responding to Juror Requests for Instructional Clarification
July 9th, 2018

Duty to Consider Elaboration of Standard Instructions Pursuant to PC 1138, when the jurors “desire to be informed on any point of law arising in the case … the information required must be given ….” PC 1138 “imposes upon the court a duty to provide the jury with information the jury desires on points of law.” […]


Tags: , , ,


Partial Acquittal Rule: Does Stone Survive Blueford?
February 16th, 2015

  In Stone v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 503 the court recognized that the “deceptively simple” yet “complex, rapidly expanding body of law” surrounding the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy arose from both the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, section 15 of the California Constitution.   However, Blueford v. […]


Tags: , , , , , , , ,