California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Duley, F077020 (Cal. App. 2020):
We reject defendant's argument that the length of the jury deliberations reflects this was a close case, and that the prosecutor's arguments thus improperly tipped the balance in the People's favor. Although the jury deliberated over a period of three days, much of this time was dedicated to readback of the testimony of the percipient witnesses. Outside of the readback, deliberative time comprised just over six and a half hours of the jury's deliberations and was conducted in relatively brief intervals. During that time, the jury also made two requests for clarification, neither of which relate to the alleged points of misconduct. Ultimately, the jury was asked to decide two substantive counts, each with an enhancement, while considering evidence from a number of trial witnesses. The time taken to deliberate, and the specificity of the jury's questions, are at least as likely to demonstrate the jury's careful consideration of the evidence and the seriousness with which the jurors set about reaching their verdicts. "Rather than proving the case was close, the length of the deliberations suggests the jury conscientiously performed its duty." (People v. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312, 422 [regarding deliberations of less
Page 33
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.