California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Prieto, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 18, 30 Cal.4th 226, 66 P.3d 1123 (Cal. 2003):
In this case, the court acted well within its discretion in delaying its inquiry until after the announcement of the verdict. When defendant alerted the court to the alleged misconduct, the court was just about to receive the verdict from the jury. At that time, defendant had not fully investigated the matter and could only provide the court with vague and unsubstantiated allegations. In light of these vague, last-minute allegations, the court could properly have declined to investigate the allegations at that time and could have received the verdict immediately. (See People v. Beeler, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 989, 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 607, 891 P.2d 153.) The court's decision to do so a few hours later, even though a witness was available to testify as to the misconduct, did not transform its refusal to delay the verdict into an abuse of discretion.
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.