California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Cox, 280 Cal.Rptr. 692, 53 Cal.3d 618, 809 P.2d 351 (Cal. 1991):
Moreover, jurors might well completely refuse to talk with defense counsel or investigators if they anticipated being called into court for subsequently declining to acknowledge their statements under oath. The untoward result of potentially foreclosing any possibility of uncovering misconduct militates against applying Hedgecock in a broader factual context. [53 Cal.3d 700] We should also refrain from formulating any rule that would tend to "inhibit or restrict the free exchange of ideas during the jury's deliberations." (People v. Elkins (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 632, 638, 176 Cal.Rptr. 729; cf. Evid.Code, 1150, subd. (a).) To the extent jurors might seek to guard against intrusive posttrial inquiry by counsel or the court, thorough and penetrating discussion of the merits of the case might suffer.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.