How has the court treated the jury in a trial where the trial court advised the jury to continue deliberating on a motion?

The trial court did not make any statements that, by any stretch of the judicial imagination, could be construed as telling the jurors they had to reach a verdict. Nor did the trial court make any other potentially coercive statements: "[T]he jury was never directed that it was required to reach a verdict, nor were any constraints placed on any individual juror's responsibility to weigh and consider all the evidence presented at trial. The trial court also made no remarks either urging a verdict be reached or indicating possible reprisals for failure to reach an agreement. In short, it is clear the trial court took great care in exercising its power 'without coercing the jury into abdicating its independent judgment in favor of considerations of compromise and expediency. . . . Nothing in the trial court's comment in the present case properly may be construed as an attempt to pressure the jury to reach a verdict . . . .' [Citation.]" (People v. Moore (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1105, 1121.) "[T]he direction to continue deliberations could only have been perceived as giving jurors an opportunity to enhance their understanding of the case, rather than as pressure to reach a verdict. [Citation.]" (People v. Pride (1992) 3 Cal.4th 195, 266.) The court acted well within its discretion in merely instructing the jury to return to the jury room and attempt to formulate a question that, if answered appropriately might, and actually did, aid them, in reaching a verdict.

Page 29