What is the effect of the court's decision to tell the jury that there is absolutely no reason any other decision would be made by the jury?

7 When the jury returned to the courtroom after deliberating for a for a day and a half the court announced that it was "going to tell them there is absolutely no reason any other decision woulld be reached by any other people. If there is anything wrong with that, I'd like to have an understanding about that." Defense counsel suggested that the court should first find out whether the problem was inability to arrive at a verdict and that the court might then instruct them that it did not "believe that any other jurors, if ever selected in this case would do any different." the people now argue that thereby the defense invited the error. We disagree. First: The charge, condemned in Gainer, is that "the case must at some time be decided," with its "attendant implication that a mistrial will inevitably result in retrial, . . ." (Id% p. 851, 139 Cal.Rptr. at 870, 566 P.2d at 1006.) not the flattering prediction that the next jury will be no better that the present one. Second: The initial sug- gestion came from the court, which invited comment. In the light of the authorities disapproved in Gainer, counsel's remark was more than a recognition of existing law. (CF., People v. Kitchens (1956) 46 Cal. 2d 260, 263, P.2d 17.)