In what circumstances would the jury have given undue emphasis to the significance of the gun?

As for the significance of the gun and whether the jury would have given it undue emphasis, it is clear the weapon was an important piece of evidence in the case, in light of appellant's claims that he did not intentionally shoot anyone and that Padilla somehow caused the gun to go off. The jury obviously felt that handling the gun and testing its trigger pressure would help them assess the validity of those claims. However, there's always the potential for problems when jurors conduct their own experiments on evidence during deliberations. While jurors are free to critically examine evidence and use it "according to its nature" to help them decide disputed issues in the case, they are not free to conduct experiments that result in "the acquisition of new evidence[.]" (People v. Collins (2010) 49 Cal.4th 175, 243-244.)