Can a jury be "straight jacketed" after the trial judge's decision that the jurors did not think or analyze the case properly?

5 In Maple v. Cincinnati, Inc., supra, 163 Cal.App.3d at page 394, 209 Cal.Rptr. 451, the appellate court stated: "The trial judge simply made a subjective determination that the jurors didn't think or analyze the case 'correctly,' a determination triggered by statements of a juror who had voted in the minority. [p] If a trial judge believes that the evidence is objectively insufficient as a matter of law to support a verdict, he or she of course has the power under Code of Civil Procedure section 657 to order a new trial on that basis. The trial judge does not, however, have the power to pass judgment on the correctness of the jurors' thought processes involved in weighing the evidence. [p] ... [A]ttempts by judges to straight jacket a jury in its deliberations by an after-the-fact critiquing and criticizing of the language and reasoning used in those deliberations runs directly contrary to our fundamental concept of the jury function."