Can a jury discuss a defendant's decision not to testify?

and that it should not be considered one way or the other. The foreperson's admonition was the end of the conversation on that topic. (Id. at p. 748, 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 630, 188 P.3d 580 ; see id. at pp. 750, 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 630, 188 P.3d 580 [no prejudice where jury's discussion of the costs of punishment was met with an admonition from the foreperson], 751 [possibility of prejudice from jury's discussion of psychiatric report that was not admitted into evidence was mitigated by the foreperson's reminder].) In People v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680, 94 Cal.Rptr.3d 699, 208 P.3d 634, we again agreed that it was misconduct for the jurors to discuss the defendant's decision not to testify but upheld the trial court's ruling that the presumption of prejudice had been rebutted where the offending juror was immediately reminded he could not consider this factor and the discussion

[339 P.3d 324]

ceased. (Id. at p. 727, 94 Cal.Rptr.3d 699, 208 P.3d 634 ; cf. People v. Brasure (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1037, 1060, 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 675, 175 P.3d 632 [error in prosecutor's argument concerning defendant's decision not to testify was harmless where the court promptly instructed the jury neither [to] discuss this matter nor permit it to enter into your deliberations' ].)