California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Neufer, 30 Cal.App.4th 244, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 386 (Cal. App. 1994):
Unlike the situations in Hawthorne and Alcalde, the trial court's response to the juror's question was not the only possible or correct response. Had counsel been present at the time the juror asked his question, counsel could have taken some action on appellant's behalf to amplify or clarify the juror's question. The juror's question is not crystal clear and may be interpreted a number of ways. On appeal, appellant suggests a reasonable interpretation of the question is whether discrepancies in the testimony are enough to create a reasonable doubt to find the defendant not guilty. If this was the import of the juror's question, counsel could have, for example, asked for a special instruction relating conflicting testimony to a reasonable doubt of guilt. (See e.g. People v. Sears (1970) 2 Cal.3d 180, 189, 84 Cal.Rptr. 711, 465 P.2d 847.) Since we now know that at the time of the inquiry the jury balloting started at 6-3-3 and later moved to 10-1-1, this appears to be a plausible interpretation of what was bothering the jurors and the corrective action defense counsel could have requested if given the opportunity.
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.