California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Keenan, 250 Cal.Rptr. 550, 46 Cal.3d 478, 758 P.2d 1081 (Cal. 1988):
Here, however, the court was at pains to dispel any such inference. The court neither insisted that a deadlock be resolved, nor urged minority jurors to give special attention to majority views, nor suggested that failure to reach a decision would have any specific consequences. (Cf., e.g., People v. Gainer (1977) 19 Cal.3d 835, 847-852, 139 Cal.Rptr. 861, 566 P.2d 997.) On the contrary, it reinstructed on the broad scope of the jury's sentencing discretion, including its power to exercise leniency even if aggravating circumstances outweighed mitigating. Moreover, the court repeatedly cautioned that no juror should surrender his individual judgment and conscience, even if this meant no unanimous decision could be reached. 27
Page 587
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.